Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)

30 million died?

"The Eastern Front was by far the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II. It is generally accepted as being the deadliest conflict in human history, with over 30 million killed as a result"

I have never seen such high estimates before. Is there i source to suppoert the quote? --Lindberg47 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, civilian casualties are also included into this number. For sources, you can look at the World War II casualties. All numbers there have been meticulously verified. You can find the sources there.
As regards to military losses, Krivosheev's book (G. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7, online version is available in Russian only [1]) is quite a reliable source for the USSR, although it contains some numbers for the Axis countries: Hungary, Romania, Finland (not officially the Axis member), Italy and Slovakia sustained 1,468,145 irrecoverable losses (668,163 KIA/MIA), Germany - 7,181,100 (3,604,800 KIA/MIA) + 579,900 PoWs died in Soviet captivity. It worths mentioning, however that a considerable part German losses during 1945 is hard to attribute to Eastern or Wesrent front. Nevertheless, taking into account that more than a half of German troops fought in the East even by the very end of the war, the numbers look reasonable, and some Western sources (e.g. Glantz) give even larger losses. So we have about 4.8 million Axis losses in the East during the period of 1941-1945. This is more than a half of all Axis losses (including Asia/Pacific theatre).
As regards to the Allied losses, this question is more or less clear: the USSR sustained 10.5 million military losses (including PoWs died in German captivity), so only military losses (the Axis + the USSR) amount to 15 million, far greater than in all other theatres. The numbers of civilian losses (with references) can be found in the World War II casualties.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am really surprised you have never heard of these numbers. Do you live in the US or something? Anyways, this is why Stalin should be considered the worst of the worst, as he is responsible of over 60 mil deaths himself. Norum (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "as he is responsible of over 60 mil deaths himself". It is not clear for me how did you come to this conclusion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you an American or something? That's not only the war casualties, but throughout the 29 years that Stalin was in power. Just between 1936 and 1938 he is responsible for the death of 2 million Ukrainians. Norum (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ukrainians. You probably mean "in 1932-33"? One way or the another, this talk page is not a general forum.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the second wave of Stalin's repressions in Ukraine that occurred between 1936 and 1938. Then of course there was the first wave between 1929 and 1934. Plus of course there was the man-made famine in 1932 and 1933. Norum (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Croatia?

Some people reading the main box would think that Croatia was involved in the invasion of the Soviet Union, but as far as we know the Independent State of Croatia was a relatively fragile puppet state of main Axis Powers (Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) which occupied the former Yugoslav Kingdom region with their troops. So, the Independent State of Croatia had no proper army or defence forces itself, and so it did not participate of the Eastern Front during the attack on the Soviet Union.--BalkanWalker (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you change the current Croatia to exactly what was the puppet state called. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should be better to eliminiate the I.S. of Croatia icon-flag, since it did not participate in the military invasion of the Soviet Union.--BalkanWalker (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's necessary to provide a source which lists the forces which attacked the Soviet Union. --Erikupoeg (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the main historians agree that the I.S. of Croatia did not attack the Soviet Union directly. Until we have solid, written references about Croatian troops attacks on the Soviet Union, the flag of I.S. of Croatia must be excluded from the infobox.--BalkanWalker (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

At least one Croatian regiment (under Croatian flag) participated in the Battle of Stalingrad Of course, their role was not significant, but their contribution was at least comparable with that of Cuba or Brasil (the Allies).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So why don't you add it? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate Sovet victory?

What exactly does this mean? Was there a problem with "Decisive Soviet victory"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.186.81 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I also see no problem with "decisive". During the final stages of the war Soviet superiority was really decisive, as well as the victory. By contrast, "ultimate" is tautology, because any result is "ultimate". --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Axis-Soviet War

User:Shatteredwikiglass has been attempting to state that the term "Axis-Soviet War" is the most common and accurate term for the Eastern Front, but has not supplied any evidence. Does anyone have any evidence for this term allegedly being the 'most common'? Skinny87 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Am away from my limited sources on the Second World War's Eastern Front however a quick look through 2 pages of Google hits show the term only linking back to this article. I think you should also take a look at the template and dicussion page Template:Campaignbox Axis-Soviet War.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Er...how about you gentlemen think encyclopedically? This was a war between a coalition on the one side, and a state on the other. These are facts of history even if not reflected by Google hits. Wha evidence would an aspiring MA in History need? ;)--121.218.70.139 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the title Eastern Front is less encyclopaedic than Axis-Soviet war? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

More correct definition of EF

I restored a more correct definition made by Shattered Wikiglass (and extended it), because it is incorrect to reduce the Eastern front just to the Sovier-German war. I don't think citations are needed because, according to WP policy, only challenged materials or materials likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. The fact that Italy, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland fought against the USSR is well known and no citations are required.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of German Civilians During Russian Advance

Can a section on this be added? There is a section on German atrocities but not one covering the actions against the German civilians by Soviet troops once they arrived in Germany proper - or formerly occupied areas settled by Germans. This in no way is meant to suggest that the two were equivalent (morally or otherwise), and the article should explain the difference in motivations (i.e. war of extermination by germans vs. revenge by soviets). However, I believe such a section would help convey the ferocity of the fight on both sides as many of the Wehrmacht troops viewed the consequences of failure as annihilation and not merely failure of national Socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.77.6 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO there should be a single section (as there is now) but of course atrocities by both sides should be included. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The series of events preceding the opening of the Eastern Front ...

This para from the lede seems to belong to the background section. As a rule WP:LEDE "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Pre-1941 events are not covered by the article (just one paragraph in a Background section). Therefore the whole paragraph devoted to the events preceding the EF itself seems to be absolutely redundant in the lede.
In addition, the last paragraph ("This article, however, concentrates on the much larger conflict fought - after the start of Operation Barbarossa - from June 1941 to May 1945...") mostly repeats what is written in the very beginning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Siberian troops

The text:

"During the autumn, Stalin had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow (these troops had been stationed there in expectation of a Japanese attack, but Stalin's master spy Richard Sorge indicated that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead)."

seems to be not completely correct. According to Raymond L. Garthoff("The Soviet Manchurian Campaign, August 1945" Source: Military Affairs, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Oct., 1969), pp. 312-336), the size of Japanese elite Kwantung army was 1,1 million in 1942 and 787,600 in 1945. To contain this army, during the whole WWII the USSR kept about 750,000 infantry men, 1000 tanks and 1000 aircrafts north of Amur river. In other words, the amount of Soviet troops and armament was about equal to that of Kwantung army, and close to the amount of troops Hitler kept in western Europe foreseeing Allied invasion. Therefore, it is not correct to say that Stalin relied upon Sorge's data too much. I would propose to re-word the present text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your source. Regardless of how much of a force remained in the far east, some forces were transferred west in time to enter the battle of moscow. I have no idea if Sorge was the source or the reason; that's a separate question. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your point in unclear to me. The source states explicitly that three quarter million army was kept in far east to contain Kwantung army, and this amount was sufficient to stop Japanese troops even in the absence of reinforcement. The amount of troop was equal to the amount Hitler kept in Western Europe, and we know that he did expect Allied invasion there.
According to Louis Rotundo (The Creation of Soviet Reserves and the 1941 Campaign. Louis Rotundo Source: Military Affairs, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Jan., 1986), pp. 21-28), "over 30 divisions were moved from Far East in 1941, however the mobilization of new troops allowed the strength of Far East troops to double over the pre-war level." Therefore, the first statement (During the autumn, Stalin had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow) is correct, whereas the statement in parentheses (these troops had been stationed there in expectation of a Japanese attack, but Stalin's master spy Richard Sorge indicated that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead) is wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is you're going beyond what the source says. I agree the first bit of the sentence is correct. So, the remaining questions are: did Sorge tell his government that the Japanese would move south rather than attacking in China? Were there other intel sources? If yes, did Stalin believe him/them? If yes, did STAVKA weaken the far eastern army in order to help defend Moscow? The fact that a huge force was nevertheless maintained in the far east does not directly address these questions. An alternative wording, which bypasses the whole problem, might be something like this:

During the autumn, STAVKA had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow. These troops had been stationed there to defend against a possible Japanese attack, but intelligence estimates that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead allowed STAVKA to redeploy a portion of these forces.

How would that be? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem still remains. The text proposed by you creates an impression (although doesn't tell it explicitly) that the total number of troops in Far East decreased because Stavka was confident in Japanese peaceful intentions. However, as we see from the sources, the amount of troops in Far East was still quite sufficient to stop Kwantung army; moreover, this amount even increased in 1941. We need either to add more explanations, or to remove this peace of the text. Taking into account, that the text proposed by you essentially repeats the last sentence of the previous section I propose to remove is. Instead of that, I would add:"whereas a three quarter million army remained stationed there anticipating the attack of Japanese Kwantung Army." That would be more correct, because in actuality Sorge didn't report that Japan fully abandoned her aggressive plans. According to Victor Mayevsky, "This information made possible the transfer of Soviet divisions from the Far East, although the presence of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria necessitated the Soviet Union's keeping a large number of troops on the eastern borders..."
In actuality, according to him, the attack was possible at least twice: in 1941 (if Moscow was captured) and in 1942 (if battle of Stalingrad was won by Germany).
Minor point. Unlike "OKH" or "OKW", "Stavka" is not an acronym. It is short for "Stavka verkhovnogo glavnokomandovaniya", administrative staff and General Headquarters. Therefore, it is correct to write "Stavka", not "STAVKA".
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Casualties section biased?

First of all, one of the sources listed, a book "Ivan's War", I would say isn't exactly a reliable source, I remember reading some not so positive responses. Can't really find where I've read it, maybe someone here would want to try to help me out?
Another thing are some of the sentences in the section, they sound so one-sided: "...Stalin was willing to strike back against the invading Axis forces at all costs and led the war with extreme brutality..." - wasn't Hitler doing the same thing from 1943/1944 onward? The so called "total war"?
"Faced with badly equipped infantry units barely capable of standing up against machine guns, tanks and artillery..." - a generalisation as if this was a daily common through out the whole war. Needs to be specified where and when.
If you don't count dead POWs on both sides the ratio of killed military personel would be approximately 1,5 killed Soviet for every 1 Axis. If you compare it to Battle of France for example the ratio would be some 7 Allied individuals killed for every 1 Axis. In Battle of France it is attributed to the Blitzkrieg while in case of the Eastern Front it's because of those "Barbarian Russkies", am I right? At least that's how I feel about it reading the arguments in the current article section.
I say we need a rewrite. Or remove the 1st paragraph completely as it was before, leaving only the 2nd par ("The fighting involved millions of Axis and Soviet troops...") and onwards which sounds more neutral.
Anyone feeling the same way I do? IJK_Principle (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally agreed. The number of military losses (except dead POWs) really contradict to the picture drawn in the first para: 4,430,000 vs 6,650,000 do not support the para's statement. In addition, the paragraph should be carefully checked, because some statements seem to be unsupported by the sources. For instance, the sentence "The Red Army took much higher casualties than any other military force during World War II, in part because of high manpower attrition and inadequate time for training." pretends to be written based on the Glantz's report on Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk, July 1943. However, in actuality Glantz writes the following:

"However, it was in the tactical arena that Soviet forces had to make the greatest progress if they were to reverse the trends of the past and avoid tactical disasters that, in turn, could produce operational defeat. That progress was apparent at Kursk. It was clear that the tactical proficiency of the Soviet soldier and lower-ranking officer often lagged behind that of his German counterpart--in part because of high manpower attrition and inadequate time for training. However, those who had survived learned, and a generation of more tactically competent company, battalion, and regimental commanders emerged at Kursk. In part, that competence resulted from the systematic collection, analysis, and dissemination of war experiences conducted under the auspices of the General Staff."

Taking into account that the major Glantz's conclusion was :"Kursk stands like an object lesson to those who would stand in awe and fear of current offensive threats. Kursk announced to the world that for every offensive theory, there is a suitable defensive one available to those who devote the requisite thought necessary to develop it", I strongly doubt the sentence really reflects the main idea of the cited source.
A direct comparison of the sentence: "Stalin's order No 270 of 16 August 1941, states that in case of retreat or surrender, all officers involved were to be shot on the spot and all enlisted men threatened with total annihilation as well as possible reprisals against their families." with the Order No. 270's text demonstrates that the sentence does not reflect the order's text correctly.
My conclusion is that the paragraph should be either deleted or carefully examined, because I have a strong reason to suspect that the sources does not directly support the information as it is presented in the para.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence:

"In accordance with the orders of Soviet High Command, retreating soldiers or even soldiers who hesitated to advance faced being shot by rearguard SMERSH units:Stalin's order No 270 of 16 August 1941, states that"

is wrong. It obviously is a confusion between Order No. 270 and Order No. 227: barrier troops were formed pursuant to the latter. In addition, the source (Ivan's war) says that the requirement for armies to maintain companies of barrier troops was withdrawn after just three months, on October 29 1942. Intended to galvanise the morale of the hard-pressed Soviet Army and emphasise patriotism, it had a generally detrimental effect and was not consistently implemented by commanders who viewed diverting troops to create barrier units as a waste of manpower, so by October 1942 the idea of regular blocking units was quietly dropped (page 158). In connection to that, I believe we can remove this fragment as marginally relevant and unimportant.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the exact same paragraph is also present in the World War II casualties of the Soviet Union article, Causes section. IJK_Principle (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the unsourced sentence: "Faced with badly equipped infantry units barely capable of standing up against machine guns, tanks and artillery, the tactics of Soviet commanders were often based on mass infantry attacks, inflicting heavy losses on their own troops." is simply ridiculous, taking into account that during the war the USSR produced much more tanks than the Axis did (a great part of them was famous T-34, the best WWII tank, according to some sources), had perfect artillery, and Soviet infantry was equipped mostly with sub-machine guns, in contrast to German infantry, equipped with rifles. I believe, I can remove this statement, because the facts that took place in certain (short) phases of the war cannot be projected on the war as whole.
I am also curious why nothing was said about heavy Axis losses. In actuality, the Axis (the Axis as whole, including Japan) lost in Eastern front more troops than in all other theaters of war taken together...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another ridiculous statement is: "The genocidal death toll was attributed to several factors, including brutal mistreatment of POWs and captured partisans by both sides..." This sentence is intended to create an impression that both anti-Axis and anti-Allied partisan movements were of about equal scale. Definitely, it was not the case. In addition, high mortality among Axis POWs doesn't fit a genocide definition, because it is generally explained just by dramatic food and medical help shortage in the USSR as whole. GULAG prisoners and even civilians suffered from that in about the same extent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"multiple atrocities by the Germans and the Soviets against the civilian population and each other, the wholesale use of weaponry on the battlefield against huge masses of infantry." Again, taking into account that Soviet and Axis population losses are hard to compare, and because a considerable part of Axis civilian losses was inflicted by Western allies (including the Allied bombing campaign) it seems not correct to equate the scales of German and Soviet atrocities. Although formally the section pretends to be neutral, such an action has an opposite effect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Commander list

Since Andrey Vlassov has been recently included into the Commander list, I am wondering about the rules for incorporation of one or another person into this list. It is natural to expect that only highest rank commanders (Army generals or marshals) should be included there. Alternatively, only the commanders of fronts, Stavka and General Headquarters' should be included. By contrast, the person having a comparatively low rank, or the commanders of relatively small miloitary units (divisions or armies) should not be in the list. In connection to that, I propose to exclude the persons like Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Vlassov from the list.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That edit prompted precisely the same concern from me. I agree Stavka and Front commanders should be listed. But going below that simply turns this list into 'my favorite commanders'. I would exclude divisional commanders too, much as we may admire Rodimstev for example. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Commanders list in current form is just retardedly long. We have even some Croatian regimental commanders there. Soviet-German commanders should be limited to front and army group commanders and higher. From other states I would include Mannerheim and maybe also Antonescu and Bór-Komorowski.--Staberinde (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Croatian participation in the war was limited with one regiment, I don't think Croatian commander should be in the list. With regards to the Poles and Czechs, at least one commander should be there. In addition, leaving only Bór-Komorowski's name may create an absolutely wrong impression that he was a commander of the Polish Eastern front's troops, that was, obviously, not the case.
However, I support the proposal in general.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggested Bór-Komorowski only because Warsaw uprising wasnt under direct Soviet command like all other polish-czech commanders on allied side. But frankly if it creates some dispute here I would suggest removing him too. Considering scale of conflict and current situation in infobox we should generally cut more if that is needed for making everyone happy, instead of cutting less to make everyone "represented". Otherwise we will be soon also adding Romanian and Bulgarian commanders to allies side to represent period when they changed sides, not to mention whoever lead Slovak national uprising.--Staberinde (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I started thinking that maybe even Front/Army Group is too small unit for such massive conflict as fighting on Eastern Front was. Template:Infobox_military_conflict suggests For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Barbarossa already has 10 Soviet commanders(sticking only to front commanders and higher) and it covers only like 1/8-1/7th of whole campaign. Maybe limit Eastern Front infobox to Hitler, Stalin, Mannerheim and maybe also German/Soviet Chiefs of the General Staff? That would probably allow to shorten commanders list to 10 names or less which would be more readable.--Staberinde (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Now I started thinking that maybe even Front/Army Group is too small unit for such massive conflict" You correctly pointed out that that conflict was very massive (in actuality, about a half of whole WWII, in terms of troops involved, casualties and strategic implications). Therefore, it is quite natural to have many commanders in the list. If we limit the infobox with Hitler, Stalin, Mannerheim and Antonescu, we thereby omit Konev, Rokossovsky, Chernyahovsky and other commanreds who were more prominent than Mannerheim and Antonescu, and whose role in WWII was more important than the role of these two. Therefore I believe the front commanders should be in the list.

I briefly looked through the Soviet commander's list and I found some of them do not satisfy this criterion and should be removed, that will shorten the list by ~20%. I'll write a concrete proposal a little bit later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I did not even suggest Antonescu anymore. I figured that only Finnish Army was big enough and operated independently from German command for long enough to have separate commander. Anyway its not natural to have many commanders in list because point of infobox is only to show few most importnant, if conflict gets bigger then requirements for including commander need to be raised too so that commanders list remains roughly in same lenght. If you want to have long list then it should be located somewhere else. Front/Army Group is fitting for something in scale of Barbarossa but not for Eastern Front. Currently we actually seem to miss quite a few commanders on Soviet side that fit criteria "Front or higher", like Sokolovsky, Kurochkin, Chernyakhovsky, Budyonny, Pavlov, Tyulenev. Most likely I actually missed several because Soviet commanders aren't my strong point. Anyway my last suggestion was something like Allies: Stalin+Zhukov+Shaposhnikov+Vasilevsky, Axis: Hitler+Brauchitsch+Halder+Zeitzler+Guderian+Mannerheim. Another solution would be creating fully separate article titled "Commanders of Eastern Front" or something similar, and have infobox simply linking to it like is done in WW II main article. Btw, I dont really comprehend what criteria you used for comparing "importance" of commanders in your last comment, Mannerheim simply has one critical quality which I think that nobody on Eastern Front except Hitler or Stalin had(not counting smaller events like Warssaw uprising), nobody stood above him in line of command.--Staberinde (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support the limited version of the list of commanders as proposed by Staberinde. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Antonescu. Disagree. The difference between Romania and Finland was that the former was a Germany's ally, whereas the latter was just a co-belligerent. However, Romania fielded more troops than Finland did, and participated in more important battles (Odessa, Stalingrad, Sevastopol) than the Finns did. Antonescu must be mentioned explicitly. Moreover, in my opinion, at least one commander of every Axis' allied armed forces should be in the list, because there was a considersble degree of independence of junior Axis' members from Germany.

Re: "Hitler+Brauchitsch+Halder+Zeitzler+Guderian+". I cannot understand your criteria. Why did you include Guderian and forgot von Bock, whose subordinee Guderian was? Why did you include Zeitzler, and forgot about Keitel an OKW's chief who signed an instrument of surrender that ended the Eastern Front conflict? Again, we either include only Hitler, Antonescu, Mannerheim, Horthy and Mussolini (from the Axis side) and Stalin (from Soviet side), that would be ridiculous, or include a long list of top ranked officers that played important roles in various important events and occupied important positions during different periods of the war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I did not include Guderian for his role in Barbarossa but for his role as Chief of General Staff. OKH article claims that OKH was mostly running eastern front while OKW ran other fronts, although if you think that signing instrument of surrender is so damn critical we could replace OKH men with Keitel and Jodl. It doesn't really matter what criteria exactly we pick, we just need something that cuts lenght of list down critically. Only other realistic alternative is using same approach as World War II infobox. Current situation, where by the time I see end of commanders list, the beginning of list has already dissappeared from my screen, is nonsense. Its not the purpose of infobox to attempt covering every last prominent commander.--Staberinde (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Formally, OKH was subordinated to OKW, although de facto they divided spheres of responsibility between each other. With regards to Guderian, you have to agree that his role in Barbarossa was much more notable than his activity as a chief of OKH staff. This perfectly demonstrates my point that it is quite impossible to name few key persons who played a leading role during the war in the east.

Re: "Only other realistic alternative" I believe this alternative is more realistic. Taking into account that the Eastern Front's scale is comparable with the scale of WWII as whole, the same approaches towards thier descriptions can and should be used. However, we have to write corresponding articles first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that one article with separate sections for axis and soviet commanders would be actually enough. Article could be simple list of commanders names in beginning (WW II leaders lists started exactly like that [2]), which may be latter expanded to include more detailed information about those commanders.--Staberinde (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede

According to guidelines, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." From that point of view, the penultimate para looks somewhat odd. It tells about the events preceding EF, thereby reproducing a one paragraph long Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact section.

"The series of events preceding the opening of the Eastern Front included the invasion of Poland in 1939 by Nazi Germany and the resulting fourth partition of Poland when the Soviet Union used the invasion as a pretext to annex the eastern regions of the country, populated by a majority of ethnic Ukrainians and Belarussians and by Polish minorities, as outlined in the secret codicil to the August 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression pact, which also paved the way for the 1940 Soviet occupation of Baltic states and the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia."

Most interestingly, from the last paragraph we learn that the events described in the above para are not included into the article. ("This article, however, concentrates on the much larger conflict fought"). It is unclear for me why about 20% of the lede's space is devoted to the events not covered by the article.
I propose to remove the penultimate lead's para and to rewrite the last paragraph accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Result

The proposed EF result:

Decisive Soviet victory.

• Fall Of The Nazi Germany.
• Allied Victory In European Theatre Of WWII.
• Soviet Occupation Of Germany.
• Division Of Germany Into East Germany And West Germany.
• Beginning Of The Cold War.

seem to be too broad. The USSR occupied only a part of Germany, division of Germany took place later, Cold War started not immediately after WWII, and, probably, was not inevitable. From other hand, "Allied Victory In European Theatre Of WWII" is too narrow, because the victory in EF had a deep impact on the war in Pacific, and, therefore caused the victory in WWII as whole. I fixed that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Beligerents

Belarusian Central Rada was nominally the government of Belarus from 1943–44. Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia was a NGO. Both of them weren't states, therefore, I see no reason to include them into the Belligerent section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I partly agree. However, if this is the standard, why are the Polish Underground "State" and the Polish Committee of National Liberation listed as belligerents? Both of these could hardly be considered states, the former being a resistance movement, and the latter a "committee for liberation" (like the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia). This is a double standard at its worst. Lt.Specht (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is simple. Poland never surrendered, so it continued to be a belligerent from 1 Sept 1939 to May 8 1945. Therefore both the Polish Underground "State" and the Polish Committee of National Liberation may be considered successors of the pre-war Polish state. In addition, they performed really independent military activity and fielded a considerable amount of troops. Nothing of that was done by Rada or a committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia. Similarity in names is misleading in that case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the Polish Committee (which was only recognized by the Soviets), taken from its wiki page, "It exercised control over Polish territory re-taken from Nazi Germany and was fully sponsored and controlled by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", "the Soviet Union started to transfer power in the Soviet-controlled areas of Lublin, Białystok, Rzeszów and Warsaw Voivodships to the PKWN. Actual control over those areas remained in the hands of the NKVD and the Red Army", "Similar events took place in many of the other East European states under control of the Red Army, as, for example, in Romania in March, 1945, where a Communist government was elected through a combination of vote manipulation, elimination and forced mergers of competing parties." Seems like a "State" on par with Rada and Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia (which did too field a large amount of troops and performed nominally independent, Russian Liberation Army, Rada also provied a significant amount of manpower and formed Commando units). The Polish Underground State could be arguably a belligerent, but the Polish Committee of National Liberation is no more qualified than Rada or the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia. Sources are needed for both the Underground State and the Polish Committee of National Liberation which claim they are belligerents, in my opinion, if both Rada and the Committee of Russian Liberation are going to be double standard-excluded from the infobox. Lt.Specht (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the Polish Committee was recognized only by the Soviets (that, by contrast, didn't recognized the London Poles), however, it eventually laid a ground for formation of the new Polish state, People's Republic of Poland. The latter was subsequently recognized by other states (including Western democraties), that post factum legitimated the Commitee. With regards to Soviet control of Wojsko Polskie, I don't think a degree of such a control was higher than that of Anglo-American control of Free French forces.
By contrast, Rada was not recognized even by Germans themselves, they fielded no military troops in their own uniform, the Russian Liberation Army didn't exist until 1944 and it participated in almost no hostilities against the Red Army. In addition, the linkage between the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia and the Russian Liberation Army in unclear for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Belorussian Central Rada is about as much separate combatant as Reichskommissariat Ostland and Reichskommissariat Ukraine or even less. Although on other hand I am not really sure if comparison of Polish Committee and Free French is appropriate either. Anyway there seems to be annoying tendency to put as much separate combatants/commanders in infoboxes as possible, making infoboxes annoyingly long, and this article is pretty extreme case of that.--Staberinde (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't compare political autonomy of Polish Committee and Free French. My major point was that (at least, initially) French forces were subordinated to the Anglo-American high command, similarly to the Polish troops in East, that were subordinated to the Soviets. This fact, taken separately, means nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to include the Free French into the belligerents box. After all, like Poland, it served on behalf of the Soviet Union, and it did take an active role within the campaign. Ricky id (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Blue Division not a belligerent

If I am not wrong, sending military units against some country means declaration of a war. Spain was neutral during WWII. Listing the Blue division as a separate belligerent means either that Spain was a belligerent or that the Blue division acted independently on both German and Spanish High Command. It is nonsense.

With regards to Rada, it was just a nominally puppet state (in other words, it was not even a puppet state, see a Staberinde's comment). Slovakian solders, for instance, wore their own uniform. What uniform had Rada's solders?
PS I will not revert your edits for a while but I'll do that in close future unless you provided more solud ground, namely, reliable sources that explicitly mention the Blue division ar Rada as separate belligerents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "It is not in a respectful manner to undo without giving reasons." I provided reasons for undoing. In addition, other editors seem to support this undoing. I would say, it is not a respectful manner to re-insert already reverted edits before a consensus is achieved. Moreover, it is against the Bold-revert-discuss rule.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "non-state actors can form belligerents as well". Al-Quaida is considered a belligerent because it acted independently and directly deployed troops against the USA. Did the Committee act independently and how many troops were subordinated to it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Having the Blue Division as a belligerent seems to be pushing it to far, as they did wear Wehrmacht uniforms and everything. Franco also declared that Spain was non-belligerent in the war. On the other hand, the article does currently have the 1st Czechoslovakian Independent Brigade listed as the Czechoslovak Republic, a country and government which was legally dissolved by its own government and leaders, its legal successor being the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, with its same President and everything. Regardless, I will add the proper citations and sources for Rada and the Blue Division soon. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Re: 1st. Well, I was not accurate enough. I meant that Sending military units against some country means becoming a belligerent. Although the USA declared no war on Iraq, by sending military units they became a belligerent, didn't they?

Re: 2nd. ("seeing that you were wrong to say that no Belarusian military existed") The question was if Belarussian military (besides partisans) fought as German allies, or they were just hiwi military/paramilitary that were directly subordinated to local German authorities. AFAIK they were under direct control of Curt von Gottberg, so they can hardly be considered a separate belligerent. With regards to the uniform, the picture presented by you is a primary source, so we can use it as a support for your claim only if it does it directly. The interpretation of this picture is ambiguous: a Belarussian caption tells us that "Belarussian youth is marshing to the railway station", whereas the German wersion specifies that they go under national Belarussian flag to Germany for training. It is not clear from the captions that they represent armed forces of at least nominally recognized state.

Re: 3rd. Again, it is not clear how a division can be a separate belligerent. The sources available for me tell that the Blue division was sent by Franco, however, Franco abstained from participation in the war. That was possible only if the Blue division was directly subordinated to the German command (to Manstein, afaik). Consequently, I see no difference between the Blue division and Charlemagne, for instance. Both Spaniards and French joined Wehrmacht, so the only difference between these two divisions was in the mechanism of their formation, not in their position in German Army. (One more restriction was that Franco requested Blue division to be utilized against the USSR only).

Re: 4th. I agree that WP is not a democracy, and only facts and sources matter. However, since it was you who introduced this new text, the burden of evidence lies on you. Therefore, it would be more correct to say that "you confirm your statements or I will have to remove it in accordance with facts and WP policy". I see no sufficient ground so far to claim that you have sustained your burden of evidence.

Re: 5th. Al-Qaeda, Yugoslavs, minor Axis members etc fought independently, although sometimes in collaboration with their allies. I see no analogy with Rada.

Re: 6th. "When I said "without giving reasons"" etc. You haven't refuted my arguments so far.

Re: 7th. I believe I addressed all your arguments 1 to 6. With regards to your other statements, let me tell you that I have much more reasons to accuse you in violation of WP policy than you do. However, I will not do that because I hate to play these games, and, in addition, I feel you are new in Wikipedia and, probably, as soon as you will get more familiar with the rules and policy (and after you encounter some really problem editor) all your behavioural and communication problems will go.

I wait for additional sources and arguments from you. Otherwise I'll delete Rada and Blue division in a couple of days (note, according to WP guidelines I can do that right now, however I prefer not to do that as a sign of a good will)
Cheers,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "a country and government which was legally dissolved by its own government and leaders" This legal dissolution was much less legal than anexation of the Baltic states by the USSR. Only future Axis countries recognized it was legal.

Re: "Regardless, I will add the proper citations and sources for Rada and the Blue Division soon." Which statements are these sources intended to support?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand your question. Intended to support that they were belligerents, at least in the same capacity that that other Allied belligerents that are currently listed were. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would be interesting to see your sources. I found no sources supporting these claims so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Responds on ##1 to 6

1. Re: "that Spain was a de jure neutral state and a de facto co-belligerent" I know a number of sources confirming the your first part of your statement, however, the same sources do not support, or even directly contradict to the second part of this statement, namely, that Spain was both de jure and de facto neutral. However, it is not so important. The most important thing is that the Blue division was a regular Wehrmacht division, and the quotes below fully, unequivocally and persuasively comfirms this my point:

"By the end of July, the 18,000 Spaniards had arrived at the German Army training center at Grafenwohr, where they were created into the 250th Infantry Division of the Wehrmacht. The Division itself was composed of three regiments, the 262d (under a Colonel Pimentel), the 263d (under Colonel Esparza), and the 269th (under Colonel Vierna), plus the 250th Mobile Reserve Battalion, the 250th Artillery Regiment, two divisional antitank companies, a sapper unit, and administrative, sanitation, medical, and veterinary units. In addition, a contingent from the Guardia Civil was incorporated into the Military Police to serve behind the Spanish sectors of the German lines. Some months later in Russia, a company of Spanish com- bat ski troops were organized under a Captain Ordas. Finally, several units of Spanish fighter pilots were organized into combat con- tingents attached to the Luftwaffe.
Dressed in regulation German Army uniforms and trained throughout August and half of September by German instructors, the Spanish volunteers were nonetheless encouraged to wear their native shoulder patch (Espana), were led by their Spanish officers, and were "allowed" to bear the obsolete Spanish weapons brought with them from Madrid. Following their absorption into the Wehrmacht, the volunteers were required to take the standard personal oath to Hitler, under whose authority they were to be fighting." (Spanish Volunteers against Bolshevism: The Blue Division Author(s): Arnold Krammer Source: Russian Review, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 388-402)

"On 31 July, as the 250? Division was formally incorporated into the Wehrmacht, the Spanish volunteers each took a personal oath to Hitler."(Franco and the Axis Stigma. Author(s): David Wingeate Pike Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 1982), pp. 369-407)

I believe it is quite sufficient to delete the Spanish Blue Division from the belligerents' list, what I will do right now.

2. Re: "it was subrdinated to the German occupation authority". You fully confirmed my point. If they were subordinated to German occupation authority, they cannot be a separate belligerent. Were Hungarian, Romanian (leaving aside the Finns) militaries directly subordinated to German military authorities? The answer is no. Moreover, they were not puppet states, they were just junior members of the coalition. The quote below confirm that:

"As part of the preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa), the Germans established a military mission in Romania.3 Composed at first mainly of Army personnel, its nature changed once Barbarossa began. By November 1941, the Germans had about 63,000 men in Romania, of whom some 45,000 were in the DLM."

""On the whole, however, the record of Axis coalition warfare on the eastern front is a poor one, with failures at every level. Major reasons for these failures included language barriers, a radical difference in the degree of modernity in the level of technology and training of the Axis armies, Germany's failure to become "the arsenal of fascism," and a lack of understanding on the part of all the Axis powers, with perhaps the exception of Finland, of the relationship between national objectives, strategy, and the morale of soldiers and officers alike." )(The Dysfunctional Coalition: The Axis Powers and the Eastern Front in World War II Author(s): R. L. DiNardo Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 711-730)

Note, the source discuss Romanian, Hungarian etc. own objectives.

The only questionable belligerents are Slovakia and Croatia. However, they have some important traits of real states, similar to that of Vichy France: their own government, their own army, their own political parties and legislation. Did Rada have at least something like that? No. It was an occupied territory, and the only thing its "army" could do was to help Germans to fight against Partisans. The latters were much stronger and much more numerous, and in the absence of Wehrmacht they would steamroll this "government" in days. Again, the occupation authorities granted minimal autonomy to a handful of collaborationists, and it is deeply incorrect to compare this pseudopuppet state with Slovakia and Croatia.

3. This question needs no answer because, as I already proved, neither Spain nor the Blue division were a separate belligerents.

4. Taking into account that my sources directly state that neither Spain nor the Blue division were a separate belligerents it is clear that you didn't sustain your burden of evidence.

5. I explained the difference between Croatia and Rada, I believe it is sufficient. However, it might be useful for you to read, for instance that article (Rivalry between Germany and Italy in Croatia, 1942-1943 Author(s): Srdjan Trifkovic Source: The Historical Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 879-904) that states that Croatia was both in German and Italian spheres of influence, and was more a satellite rather than a puppet state. Nothing in common with Rada.

6.

7. Again, feel free to do whatever you want. You seem not fully understand how does Wikipedia works.
Finally, I delete the Blue division and I give you some more time to find additional sources on Rada.
Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The recent revert is not justified. The source (Shirer) does not support the text. The text: "and other leaders of the German High Command, considered the Spanish Blue Division to be an "Allied Division", in the same context of Romanian, Hungarian, etc. divisions. William L. Shirer. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is a pure example of WP:OR because it is the editor's conclusion made based on the Shirer's book. Please, do not restore the Blue division, because you have no ground for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you decreased a level of your rhetoric.

Re: "but rather my interpretation of it" Correct. The quote you talk about is "So successful were he and Keitel with all the satellites that the German High Command calculated it would have 52 'Allied' divisions available for the summer's task-27 Romanian, 13 Hungarian, 9 Italian, 2 Slovak and one Spanish", and I have nothing against that. However, the conclusion (made by Lt.Specht, if I am not wrong) that "leaders of the German High Command, considered the Spanish Blue Division to be an "Allied Division", in the same context of Romanian, Hungarian, etc. divisions" is an interpretation of the Shirer's own words, and it was attributed to the German High Command mistakenly. In addition, Shirer doesn't say directly that the Blue division was a separate belligerent. By contrast, my sources directly state that this division was a formal part of Wehrmacht. Anyway per WP:BURDEN, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and the source provided by you does not fully support your edit, whereas my two sources (and I can provide more) tell directly opposite. Romanian of Hungarian divisions were not an official part of Wehrmacht, they had separate uniform, separate command and didn't have to take the standard personal oath to Hitler. And that is quite sufficient to consider them belligerents, by contrast to Spaniards.
I propose to close the discussion. You already violated WP:3RR rule, you committed personal attacks and your behaviour may be interpreted as uncivil. I already have enough material to report to ANI, but I have no intentions to do that because your behaviour seems to be a result of unawareness of some basic WP rules. I see you are quite prone to productive and constructive discussion, so I propose you to forget this incident. I believe you don't mind me to remove the Blue division from the article, and let's switch to something else. OK?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be an absolutely honest opponent who wants to establish truth, not to win a dispute at all cost. I respect you and your principles. In connection to that, I would like you to know that I also is interested in finding truth, not to win. As a rule, when I do a search I try to find sources supporting all points of view. If I find any sources that support your statement I'll inform you about that.
However, I sincerely cannot understand why you don't understand my point. The Shirer's fragment you quoted allows ambiguous interpretation: these words might reflect not a status of the Blue division, but its origin. Yes, this division was composed of the Spaniards, and Franco had probably some authority over them, because in 1943 he revoked the Blue division from the Eastern front, however, this doesn't mean he maintained a generel control over the diivision. If I am not wrong, the withdrawal was done at Hitler-Franco's level, not by giving an order directly to the Division's commander. By contrast to the Norwegian Quisling government, that was established as a result of German conquest, Spain was not under German control, and Hitler let the Spaniards go simply because he wanted to maintain good relations with Franco. Anyway, I see no other examples of Franco's control over the Blue division.
By contrast, according to my sources, starting from 1941 till 1943 this division was a regular Wehrmacht division, and its personnel wore German uniform, and took "the standard personal oath to Hitler, under whose authority they were to be fighting". The latter fact seems to be especially important, because after taking the personal oath to Hitler they became a regular Wehrmacht solders. Note, it is not my conclusion, this was what my sources state directly and explicitly. Frankly, I believe, in that situation (one ambiguous source on one side, and two clear and unequivocal sources on the another) the Blue division should be removed without doubts. I removed the Blue division for a while because present evidentiary base suggests that is was not a separate belligerent. However, I am ready to discuss your new arguments and, if they will be strong enough, I will support incorporation of the Blue division into the Belligerent section.
(However, the best way to do that would be to discuss the question on the talk page, and only after a consensus is achieved to introduce the Blue division into the article. That would be what WP:BRD recommends.)
I admit I probably made some "rhetoric statements" in the beginning of our discussion because I didn't consider you a serious opponent. However, starting from the middle of the discussion there were no rhetorics in my posts, I believe. Concretely, the last post contains only facts and sources, and I expect you to explain me why do you still disagree with me. Please, tell me what concretely is wrong in my rationale, because "I still strongly disagree with you in this dispute" needs in some detalisation.

PS. Re: "I came here to share things I believe right, rather than to make a "friend" at the expense of my belief". WP is not a facebook, and, therefore, is not the best place for looking for friends. It would be better if we remain opponents who respects each other's point of view, and who accepts the other's point of view when he has no more arguments.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

PPS. I probably agree that we have to look at Croatia again. Maybe, the ground is insufficient to consider it a belligerent. I'll try to find more sources on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

One more source on the Blue Division: North to Russia: The Spanish Blue Division in World War II Author(s): Gerald R. Kleinfeld and Lewis A. Tambs Source: Military Affairs, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Feb., 1973), pp. 8-13. The source states that, as I already proposed, the withdrawal of the Blue division was done via careful negotiations between Franco and Hitler, and the order to withdraw was passed to Gen. Infantes by the Supreme Commander of the Army Group North. That confirms that Franco had no direct control of the Blue division.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Belarussian Central Rada

The source supporting incorporation of Rada as a separate belligerent states:

"The Belarusian National Council organized and fielded the Belarusian Home Defense Corps (BKA) c. 60,000 men, it engaged in anti-Soviet Partisan activities and the establishment and expanding ring of fortified villages around Smalensk, which was done in other areas. The Belarusian Government-in-Exile also helped formed the 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Belarussian), Astroŭski persuaded Heinrich Himmler to place the Belarusian forces under Belarusian command. Astroǔski had set up an officers' school and issued uniforms with the "Waffen Sturm-brigade Belarus" designation. Orders were issued for Belarusian forces to be absorbed by Andrey Vlasov's Russian Liberation Army, but these order were not carried out. The famous Czorny Kot (Black Cat) Commando unit engaged in anti-Soviet guerrilla operations in Soviet occupied Belarus, it was formed in part by Astroǔski, and was airdropped behind enemy lines after a graduation parade in front of him."

It is not clear from the source, however, what was the status of the Belarusian National Council. According to my knowledge, Belorussian SSR was the occupied territory and the "National Council" was established there by German occupation authorities and was just a collaborationist government under strict German control. In that sense, it had even less autonomy than Quisling's Norway did. No one, however, lists Quisling's Norway as a separate belligerent.

In connection to that, I expect someone to present an evidence that the Belarusian National Council was more than a nominal state or a collaborationist government (e.g. that it was a puppet state of Slovakian or Croatian type). Frankly, I don't believe it is possible because I failed to find anything. If no sources will be presented in a couple of days, I'll delete Rada from the list.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree overall with much you are saying. The premise of the argument, however, is if Rada meets the same standards of other Allied "belligerents" which are currently in the article. The Polish Committee of National Liberation was established by Soviet authorities, which was also under strict Soviet control, and was little more than a propaganda tool by the Soviets. Is this not very comparable to Rada? The fact that the Committee would later evolve into the Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland, and much later that would transform into the People's Republic of Poland is not really that relevant, as this article deals with the Eastern Front and its time period. Both of those two were mere Soviet puppets in the same sense. The same basis of this argument can be applied to both the Polish Underground State, and the Czechoslovak Republic (which did not even exist during the war). I feel that the solution to this dispute is to revert back to how the old battlebox was, before the "belligerents" which I have mentioned were not in the battlebox, but were listed in the bottom Soviet Union notes; somehow they were "promoted" to the battlebox within the last year or so. Germany's notes list the Russian Liberation Army and Blue Division which seems appropriate, Rada could be listed there as well. Proposed changes to the right. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Front (World War II)
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Soviet Union Romania (from 1944) Bulgaria (from 1944) Finland (from 1944)	Germany Romania (to 1944) Finland (to 1944) Italy (to 1943) Italian Social Republic (from 1943) Hungary Independent State of Croatia Slovakia Bulgaria (September 5-8, 1944)

In general, your point is clear and non-controversial. However, we have to check if we took everything into account. I'll try to look in history to find who added those belligerents and which arguments and sources were used as a support for that. If the arguments are not strong enough (and if I don't find any additional sources) I will support removal of these belligerents.
Anyway, Rada should be removed anyway, what I do right now.
In addition, Tuva and Mongolia should be added as Allied belligerents (I have several sources sating that those two countries were independent states, although strongly dominated by the USSR. In other words, the relations were similar to those between Germany and, e.g. Slovakia.
We also have to check if Croatia officially declared a war on the USSR. I have a feeling that it didn't (although I am not sure)--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

German casualties according to Overmans

We have to read and cite Overmans correctly if we use his statistical analysis (which is being disputed). I have corrected the table: Overmans p. 265: "nearly 4 million dead including died POWs". -- p. 272 (and p. 336): Up to 31/12/1944 1,401,462 KIA and 1,135,414 MIA (although having done a mere statistical analysis, a projection using some 7,000 samples from the card index of the Wehrmachtauskunststelle (WAst), he usually gives very exact figures up to the last digit!). For 1945, he has only one category "Endkaempfe" -- final battles in Germany --, not differentiating anymore between single theatres; this category is introduced p. 174. Dead in "final battles" are 1,230,000. On p. 265 Overmans assumes that out of these 1,230,000 two-thirds should be attributed to Eastern Front, that is 800,000, about 400,000 known KIA and another 400,000 MIA -- makes a total of ca. 3.563.000 for Eastern Front. Now, this contains dead from all causes: KIA, MIA, accidents, disease, shot by trial, and of course POWs died in captivity. For the last category Overmans has initially "only" 363,000 deaths (according to his analysis based on the card index), although it is widely known that more German POWs died in Soviet captivity. On pp. 288-289 he states that it is plausible that out of the ca. 1,536,000 he has found for MIA on the Eastern Front 1941-1945 one half each are further KIA and further died in POW. By this suggestion he has nearly 1,100,000 died POWs (363,000 + 700,000). And this figure fits very well to that one assessed by the "Maschke commission" (which had used a different approach some years earlier): 1.094.000 dead POWs. --Akribes (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainie as a belligerent.

I removed Ukraine from the belligerents' list. First, the source seems to be incorrect, the actual source seems to be not Abbott Peter, Pinak Eugene. Ukrainian Armies 1914 - 1955 (2004), OspreyPublishing, p41, but Peter Abbott, Oleksiy Rudenko Ukrainian Armies 1914-55, Volume 412 of Men-at-arms series Osprey Publishing, 2004 ISBN 1841766682, 9781841766683. Secondly, I do not understand what concrete source's statement supports the idea that UIA represented whole Ukraine (please, provide a quote). Thirdly, UIA involvement in Eastern Front hostilities insufficient to talk about it as a separate belligerent. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Silver bullet. Don't understand what do you mean. I always support a uniform application of similar criteria to all sides. If I missed something, please let me know.

1. Re: "A non-seperate UIA attacked both Germans and Soviets during the same period" 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian) had only one engagement with the Red Army (Brody). During that battle it fought with (not against) other German divisions, so I do not understand what do you mean. If you mean anti-partisan activity, I doubt it can be considered a separate belligerence.

Re: 2. See the section below.

Re: 3. I didn't remove Croatia because, by contrast to Spain, I found no information on that account (neither pro nor contra). However, you have to take into account that Croatia, by contrast to Spain, was an Axis country. One way or the another, it is not in the list now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Sorry, I just noticed it is still in the list. I am not sure if we really need to have it here, however I am still hot sure if its removal is completely justified. Let's discuss it if you want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not mistook the UIA and 14th SS for one unit. However, the 14th waffenSS division was the sole military unit composed from Ukrainians that was involved in more or less serious engagement with regular Soviet troops. With regards to UIA, it was just a was a group of Ukrainian nationalist partisans acting in behalf of theOrganization of Ukrainian Nationalists. The latter was a Ukrainian political movement, so it could neither represent the Ukrainian nation as whole (you are absolutely right here) nor be considered a separate belligerent (CPSU, or American Democrats weren't a separate belligerents in WWII).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: 1. No. In actuality, I didn't mix them, my point was that 14th division was the only unit composed of the Ukrainians that was involved in more or less serious engagement with the Red Army. Contribution of other Ukrainian formed troops was too negligible to speak seriously about a belligerence.

Re: 2. Al-Qaida didn't claim it represented any nation. It represented itself, and, in that sense, can be considered a belligerent. It is impossible to compare relative military contribution of Al-Qaida in the Afghan war and UIA's contribution in Eastern Front.

Re: 3. I didn't compare UIA and US democrats. I compared OUN and democrats. Democrats, as a ruling party, waged the war against the Axis, however, not Democrats, but the US was a belligerent. We cannot list every political party, having or not having their own military wing, as a separate belligerent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:

By that logic Stepan Bandera shouldn't be listed as a commander as he was in charge of a political movement (OUN) not a state or army. And Bandera was allied with Nazi Germany only until 1941 (basically when they advanced into Ukraine). I think he should be removed.

Spannish Blue division, again.

A user Vulturedroid insists on addition of Spain (or Spannish Blue division) as a separate Eastern Front's belligerent. His sole argument is the statement made by the American journalist William Shirer in his brilliant but somewhat obsolete book ("The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"). This statement is: "So successful were he and Keitel with all the satellites that the German High Command calculated it would have 52 "Allied" divisions available for the summer's task--27 Romania, 13 Hungarian, 9 Italian, 2 Slovak and one Spanish." Since Romania, Hungary, Italy and Slovakia were German allies, Vulturedroid concluded that Spain has to be considered a German ally too.
Had this source been the only source available on the subject, I would have no objections to include Spain into the belligerents list. However, other sources and other circumstances exist that do not support such a conclusion.
First, the Shirer's book is old, Shirer was a Hitler's contemporary, and the book is based only on the information available in 1940s-50s.
Second, this book is about Nazi Germany in general, not about Spain. According to WP:V "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." In other words, the articles specifically devoted to some subject are preferable over general books.
What do specialized articles say about the Blue division? Arnold Krammer (Spanish Volunteers against Bolshevism: The Blue Division. Russian Review, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 388-402) says that the Spaniards were dressed in regulation German Army uniforms and, " following their absorption into the Wehrmacht, the volunteers were required to take the standard personal oath to Hitler, under whose authority they were to be fighting." AFAIK, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian and Slovakian armies were dressed in their own uniform, their personnel did not take the standard personal oath to Hitler, and no sources state these troops were absorbed in German Army. So called "Spannish Blue division" in actuality was a 250th Infanterie-Division of German Army. Therefore, neither this division alone, nor Spain as whole cannot be considered an Eastern Front belligerent.
Maybe, Franco retained some degree of control over this division, similar to what Antonescu or Mussolini did with regards to their troops? No. Blue Division's withdrawal in 1943 started as a result of delicate negotiations between Franco and Hitler, and the order to withdraw was passed to the Division's commander by the Supreme Commander of the Army Group North, not by Franco. No other facts exist that Franco had a direct control over his division. (Source: North to Russia: The Spanish Blue Division in World War II. Author(s): Gerald R. Kleinfeld and Lewis A. Tambs. Military Affairs, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Feb., 1973), pp. 8-13).
The above sources, dealing with the Blue division specifically, do not support a conclusion that the Blue division was a separate belligerent either formally or de facto. Therefore, the Blue division cannot be included in the belligerent's list unless new strong evidences supporting such a statement are provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(the following words are against PoVs of user Vulturedroid, which have been deleted by himself)Vulturedroid (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you read more widely than just The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which is only one of thousands of books which cover the fighting on the Eastern Front and is now regarded as outdated and inaccurate (see, for example, Richard E. Evans' introduction to his The Coming of the Third Reich for a discussion of it's shortcomings). The Oxford Companion to the Second World War describes Spain as 'neutral' throughout the conflict and the Blue Division as a 'volunteer' force under German control. While Franco was very sympathetic to the Nazis and permitted (encouraged?) volunteers to serve with the German armed forces on the condition that they fought on the Eastern Front, Spain wasn't a belligerent in the war on the Eastern Front in a meaningful sense. By the way, I'd encourage you to keep the length of your posts down (see WP:TLDR) and focus on discussing the issue, not other editors - I didn't read your above post in any detail due to its length and I doubt that anyone else will. Nick-D (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D, the oath of allegiance to Hitler and the German authority over the members of Blue Division, conclusively prove that they were legally separate from the forces of the Spanish state and hence Spain was not a belligerent during WWII. Vulturedroid believes the Shirer statement that he's quoted a number of times proves otherwise, when it actually just lists the non-German divisions in the theater, and, most importantly, does not directly address belligerency at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history inviting editors to join the discussions on this page. Seeking other editors' views using means such as this is, of course, part of the standard conflict resolution process. Again, please stop focusing on individual editors. Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D, I believe Vulturedroid is focused not on me but on my POV. He uses my name just as a reference on my POV.

Dear Vulturedroid. I think you miss that Shirer's statement can be understood in a different way. As Sturmvogel 66 correctly pointed out, that could be just a list of non-German divisions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Re: "This argument repeats editor Paul Siebert's PoVs" Incorrect. These two editors not repeated my POV but supported it with new arguments. Of course, WP is not a democracy, so not a number of editors matters but their arguments, however, you addressed none of these new arguments (and I wouldn't say my arguments have been "counterproved" by you).--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. He's right, lengthy, so he doesn't need to see what he objects. Being always right, why bother?

321, congratulations. My words deleted so no lengthy. Spain not listed. I give up for good.

Vulturedroid (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "he doesn't need to see what he objects". Incorrect. I read everything you wrote, and I agree that the belligerence of Croatia should be discussed again, because, maybe, there is no sufficient ground to speak about it as a Eastern Front belligerent. However your other arguments are not convincing enough, and that fact, not that your posts were lengthy, or that you were not supported by other editors, is your main problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Central Europe" as part of the Front

Whoever replaced the location from "Central and Eastern Europe" to "Eastern Europe" needs to check their facts. Referring to the UNSD classification is a sure sign of bias as it's a perfectly fine statistical classification, but not applicable in either a historical or socio-cultural context. The region from Estonia to Slovenia is called "Central Europe", live with it. Excuse me, Paul Siebert. Gregorik (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) According to the United Nations Statistics Division Europe is divided onto Western, Eastern, Northern and Southern parts. No Central Europe exists in this classification. By contrast to these four strictly defined regions, Central Europe is vaguely defined territory. Moreover, strictly defined category, Eastern Europe appeared to be combined with vague "Central Europe". Northern Europe appeared to be omitted, Southern Europe (Belgrade) is omitted, whereas some countries were counted twice: for instance, Slovakia is a part of both "central" and Eastern Europe. That is inaccurate and senseless.

With regards precise geography, Eastern front events took place in Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, etc), Northern Europe (Baltics, Finland, etc) Southern Europe (Yugoslavia) and Western Europe (Austria, Germany).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
PS "is a sure sign of bias as it's a perfectly fine" If it can be called a bias, than it is a bias towards accuracy: removal of vague terms (that probably please someone's ear) and replacement them with strict geographical definitions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC) PPS. In addition to vagueness, "Central and Eastern Europe" narrows the actual scope of the conflict. Since a major part of Europe (including Western, Austria, and Southern, Yugoslavia, Europe) were affected, the most correct word should be just "Europe".--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. While most people think of the "Eastern Front" as fighing in Stalingrad and Moscow and even less, Kursk. The reality is that the Eastern Front took place in Central and even southern Europe as well.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Casualty Section

Someone has made a truly great work with editing the casualty section, but some of the fiures do not add up, and without explanation (concerning Soviet Military casualties). What is the reason?

The person who has made this change, could he or she please also take a look at the article German casualties in World War II? EriFr (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As for me, I had made some precision concerning German casualties, will try to do so with the other article--Akribes (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand from the figures, Kirosheev is quoted as a source for "Total dead" but Erlikhman for "KIA / MIA / Non-combat" and "POWs that died in captivity". What is the reason behind this solution? EriFr (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Krivosheev's study is devoted to Soviet military losses, whereas Erlikhman deals with total losses. Accordingly, Krivosheev should me used for KIA/WIA/MIA, whereas Erlikhman for total population losses. With regards to POW died in captivity, a disagreement exist among scholars who should be considered POW and how were just captured civilians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Allright, so the figure concerning POW dead is partially quoted from Erlikhman? Does not Kirosheev give any estimates on this figure?

Actually, I suspect that it is simply the choice of categories in this article that creates a problem, since Total dead is better explained in the article World War II casualties of the Soviet Union. Here, I find it hard to see how the number of Total dead is broken down in categories. If you remove KIA/MIA/Non Combat from Total dead, you will have a number of 804,533 (POW dead in captivity), but who supports a figure close to this number? EriFr (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you use Overmans estimated for German POWs killed which is that he includes figures which he believes were shot whilst surrendering then you must do the exact same for the soviet side and that figure is about 5 million Soviet POWs shot either in captivity or whilst surrendering, you can not have on side confirmed POWs killed vs estimated killed whilst surrenderingGainswings11 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

References

This article needs a lot more references before it can pass GA or even B-class. There needs to be at least one citation per paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you at least atart the review page though?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The war was fought between the German Reich, its allies, and many pro-Nazi volunteers from occupied states, against the Soviet Union, and eventually its allies of the British Commonwealth...

This article's statement is not accurate. First, "many pro-Nazi volunteers from occupied states" is an exaggeration if we compare the number of WaffenSS troops with other Wehrmacht troops and with the Red Army. Second, these volunteers were not separate belligerents. Third, it is not clear for me how did "the British Commonwealth, France, and the United States" participate in the Eastern front hostilities if no British or American troops were there and the only French unit was "Normandy-Neman". This statement contradicts to the info box. I changed it to fix all inaccuracies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Offensive at Estonia: casualities

The source for Red Army casualities during Estonia Offensive don't seem reliable. I'd rather not include these numbers in article as questionable. Olvegg (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Vichy Forces

I see that the Spanish Blue Division is mentioned in the article, so I was wondering, why not the Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism? Sure they didn't have the same illustrious career as their Spanish counterparts, but they were still a sizable contingent of forces sent to fight on the Eastern Front by a non-belligerent. SpudHawg948 (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

I appreciate that the current lead image is somewhat iconic, but it is non-free, and its iconic status does not mean that it can bypass the non-free content criteria. I suppose there is a valid case for including this image in the article (as I would imagine that it would be worth discussing it at some point) but I do feel the lead image should be a free one, if possible. Anyone else got a thought on this? J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

From memory, the image is also believed to be a posed reentaction. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most Eastern front photos are non-free according to present-days Russian copyright law. I doubt if it is possible to find equivalent picture in German archive. WP policy does not separate lede section from a main article. Since no free equivalent is available (another photo of the same event, made by Grebnev [3] is in Russian archive now and is also copyrighted), and because the picture appears in the article namespace the use of this image in the lede fits criteria 1 (No free equivalent) and 9 (Restrictions on location). Therefore, I believe placement of this image in the lede meets non-free content criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The infobox image represents the Eastern Front as a whole- there could be free images illustrating the Eastern Front (even if it is just a map, which is fairly common in milhist articles, as I'm sure you know) and so it is replaceable in that role. If the image was used elsewhere in the article to illustrate that particularly picture (is there perhaps a place for a discussion of it?) then this would be a completely different issue. J Milburn (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but removal of the image under a pretext that is non-free does not follows from non-free content criteria: if the image can be included into the article, it equally can be included into the lede section. With regards to the image's replaceability, theoretically, any image could be replaced (with either another picture or a verbal description). However, it is hard to find a picture that would summarize the Eastern Front article better that the Khaldei's or Grebnev's photographs. The only equivalent would be the animated map similar to , however this gif needs in a serious work before it can be added.
One way or the another, I revert your edit for following reasons:

Firstly, the non-free content criteria do not prohibit non-free photos to be in the infobox (the rules apply no specific limitation on infoboxes), so your reference to these rules was not justified;

Secondly, it is hard to find a picture that would summarize the EF's outcome better that the Khaldei's photo does (your words that it is possible are not supported with any evidence);

Thirdly, you proposed to replace the photo, but in actuality you just removed it without providing any free equivalent.

I restored the image. If you want to replace it with some free equivalent, please, let's discuss what concrete image do you mean, and only after consensus is achieved can we do a replacement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, this isn't how it works. The image is replaceable. This means it should not be used, regardless of whether I or anyone else has replaced it. You accept the fact that it is replaceable- you said above that that map image could be modified to be appropriate, and our non-free content criteria are quite clear. I'm aware that there is no ban on non-free content in the lead, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with this discussion. I have chosen not to replace it as I do not know enough about the subject, and no image is better than an inappropriately used non-free image. This isn't a matter of "we'll use a non-free one for now". J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In actuality, any image is either replaceable or removable: removal of any image from WP will have no absolutely detrimental effect on an article. However, formal application of such a conclusion would mean that no non-free images can be used in WP at all (which is an obvious nonsense). Obviously this kind of wikilawyering| leads us into an impasse, therefore, something is wrong in your arguments.
The fact that some other image theoretically can be used instead of the Khaldei's photo doesn't mean per se that use of this image in an infobox a violation of non-free content criteria. The rules are violated only when some good free equivalent has been found and the fact that it is a good equivalent is recognized by all parties. I see no reason to continue this discussion until you proposed any concrete substituent.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The NFCC are quite clear that non-free content should be removed if it is replaceable, not if it is replaced. Free images exist or could be created that illustrate the Eastern Front in general terms, and so these should be used in the infobox. Again, to compare to biographies, we do not use non-free images of living people until we find a free image- we remove them, as a free image could be created. This is getting somewhat tedious now. It would be in everyone's best interests if you or someone familiar with the article could add a useful free image to the lead, rather than having the article sit there without a lead image or with a misrepresentative one. J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn asked me to take a look at this case. I have to say that I agree with him. This infobox image is only being used to illustrate and is not being used to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. This does not mean that the image has no place within the article; in fact, if it is an iconic image, it almost certainly does. But a better place for that would be in the "End of War: April–May 1945" section, or thereabouts. The infobox image should be one that can act as an image to summarize or represent the entire article. NW (Talk) 00:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The use of the image elsewhere in the article is another issue entirely- I agree there is potentially a place for it, but certainly not one by default. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firstly, your arguments are a result of poor understanding of what policy says. It tells about a free equivalent, not an adequate substitute. For example, a free map can be a substitute for a non-free image, but it is not an equivalent. What is an equivalent of the photo? Only another photograph, or picture showing the same event. If such a picture exists, we cannot use a non-free photo, however, if such a picture is not available we can use a non-free photo.. A fact that this photo can be replaced with a map, a photo of another event, of with a verbal description of the same event has no relation to what the policy says. Strictly speaking, everything can be replaced, so it is not an argument.

Secondly, the policy do not apply any specific limitation on the location of non-free images in the article. If this image can be in the article (and you, J Milburn and I agree that it can), it can be anywhere (including the infobox).

Thirdly, with regards to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", this your argument is universal, however, it can be applied to almost everything. Photos, as a rule, do not increase readers' understanding of the topic considerably, so no non-free imaged are absolutely required in WP. However, I probably see no other images that increase readers' understanding of the topic more significantly than the picture of a Soviet solder with the red flag over Reichstag: this is a concise summary of the whole military conflict.
I re-introduce the image, and I propose you to reach a consensus before attempting to remove it again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What you say is generally accurate, but you are missing a key point or two. In response to your first argument, we are talking about replacing the image with another image that serves the same purpose- the purpose of the image in the infobox, by definition, is to represent the battle. This image could easily be replaced by a free image that equally represents the battle. By comparison, the image in the infobox of (say) American Gothic could not be replaced by a free image that equally represents the painting.

Regarding your second point, no, I am not saying that an image cannot be used in the lead because it is non-free- again, see the above example. I am just saying this one cannot be used in the lead in this article because the lead image represents the battle as a whole, and so, in that context, the image is replaceable. This ties again to my example of the "image of the politician" versus the "image of the politician making a speech". Yes, the image of the politician making the speech is irreplaceable, but no, it could not be used in the politician's infobox, as, in that context, it could be replaced by a free image of the politician at any event, at any time.

I don't really have anything to say in response to your third point- you know as well as I do that that argument is useless. Continuing to make it is really not doing you any favours. There are plenty of images that significantly increase reader understanding of the topic. The best example of this is probably modern artwork.

As to your final point, we do not need to reach a consensus to remove a non-free image. We have to reach a consensus to use it. See the non-free content criteria, and note the section on the burden of proof. However, this issue is besides the point in this case, as the page is now protected. J Milburn (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Staggering example of process wonkery run amok. A completely irreplaceable and iconic image, distilling the single largest front in any war, ever, into a single photo...and you're going to spit NFCC and demand it be removed? Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that the article or the encyclopedia is better off without this picture? Or that the anonymous Soviet photographer is going to be harmed by it being included in the article? Maybe User:J_Milburn should convince the Russians should do a do-over, bomb Berlin to rubble again, and climb the Reichstag again, since it's "clearly" replaceable? I call for consensus. Sorry for my stridency, but insanity like this is why people laugh at Wikipedia... Bullzeye ^contribs 01:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This entire discussion is moot. J Milburn's original post here states "its iconic status does not mean that it can bypass the non-free content criteria." It actually does. See WP:NFCI #8. The image qualifies for fair use. Period. Lara 01:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me the image is clearly irreplaceable, in no way harms the photographer, and is historical/iconic. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "This image could easily be replaced by a free image that equally represents the battle." Yes, however, you must realize that it is a content dispute, and non-free content criteria policy has no relation to that, and, therefore, the image has been deleted for a wrong reason.

Re: "we do not need to reach a consensus to remove a non-free image. We have to reach a consensus to use it. " No. The rules are set by WP policy, so there is no difference between free and non-free images if both of them do not violate rules. What is really consensus is needed for is a change of a stable version. You changed a stable version citing a wrong reason, and I expect you to restore it while a new consensus is being achieved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity...J. Milburn, did you even think to inform the relevant Wiki-Project (in this case, WikiProject Military History) per official policy and common courtesy before you refused to allow the image to be returned, citing lack of consensus? Since you neglected to take this step before starting an edit war that required a full protection of the article, I've gone ahead and done so. In the future, before you announce a lack of consensus and swing the hammer, you might try the same. Bullzeye ^contribs 02:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More on that[4]--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for cross-posting, Paul Siebert. Bullzeye ^contribs 02:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this thread has decended into madness. I will reply to each of you in turn. Bullzeye, post one, I have demanded a non-free image is removed because in the context it is used it is replaceable. I do feel the image has a place elsewhere, I am not demanding it is removed from the encyclopedia. Your next point is unimportant. The image is non-free, and so its use will have to meet our non-free content criteria, regardless of whether you like the image or think it should be free or whatever. Lara, post 1. You cited a guideline listing possibly valid non-free images; the fact something appears on that list does not mean the NFCC do not apply to it. You know better than this, I'm actually a little alarmed. Have you even read this discussion? Native, post 1. Read the discussion. It is replaceable in the context in which it is used, and the "harming of the photographer" has nothing to do with anything. Paul, post 1. This is a content dispute, and so the NFCC have no baring? What? This is an image being removed because its use does not meet the NFCC, and you feeling that the use does meet the NFCC. I'm not even clear what your second point means, but it seems you're just dropping into meta-discussion. Let's stay on topic, shall we? Bullzeye, post 2. No, I didn't. I assumed people would be watching the talk page; this is a fairly simple issue, I didn't expect it to drop to this madness. Paul, post 2. I hate to say it, but straw man. No one is saying you can't use non-free images in infoboxes. Let's stick to the issue at hand, shall we? J Milburn (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth (probably not a lot), I think that image has every right to stay in the article. It's educational, compliments the accompanying information, is irreplaceable, as Bullzeye outlined, and does no harm to the photographer. While I'm generally opposed to the inclusion of excessive fair use images, this strikes me as an obvious and clear-cut case. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we all please end this? I want to edit this article and I can't until consensus has been reached.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Julian, there perhaps is a place for the image in the article. That's another issue entirely. J Milburn (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe, as per WP:NFCC criteria 1 and 9, that this image has good grounds to stay in the lead section of this article. I believe that removing it is unwarranted. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I hate to say it, but straw man. No one is saying you can't use non-free images in infoboxes." Lte me compare these your words with your own earlier statement:

"it is non-free, and its iconic status does not mean that it can bypass the non-free content criteria. I suppose there is a valid case for including this image in the article (as I would imagine that it would be worth discussing it at some point) but I do feel the lead image should be a free one" Please, explain how could it be understood in a different way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I said this image should not be used in the infobox. I did not say non-free images in infoboxes were banned. You are an intelligent person, you understand this distinction. Buckshot, I'm not quite sure what you are arguing there. Why do you feel that we have no free images/no free images could be created of the Eastern Front? J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The non-free criteria are pretty explicit on this point. Is it a pretty well-known image? Yes. But that doesn't override this: can a free alternative be created? Yes, one can (a map). Simple.

It's interesting to see how many people from ##juliancolton have visited... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Including yourself, Ed. NW was invited here by J Milburn. It was brought to my attention by Bullzeye who saw it on his watchlist. How'd you end up here? Regardless, a map does not convey the same information as that image. I believe Bullzeye is planning to write up a section to put the image into context, at which point, the issue should be resolved. Lara 20:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that I shouldn't have assumed a connection. I came here through Talk:World War II, which is on my watchlist; I haven't been on IRC in days. You're right that it does not convey the same information; a map would provide greater information for readers the article as a whole, and the Berlin image could appear in the appropriate section. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I concur that a map would provide the same relevance to the article that the proposed non-free image provides. If your purpose is to show the outcome, that's already been replaced by text just below it; "Decisive Soviet victory". There's no justification for this image in the infobox, any more than File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg has justification for use in the infobox on Pacific War (which has a map instead). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The image is iconic, but whether it merits the place in the infobox is a different matter. I came from WP:MILHIST talk. And in my defense, I've read the entire thread, and NFCC does place an emphasis on not harming the author for all works, especially if you read the justificaitons on image pages. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would generally agree with this post. However, the fact we have a particular concern when copyright holders may be negatively affected does not mean that the fact we believe the copyright holder will not be negatively affected is a valid argument in favour of using non-free content how we wish. The criteria must still be respected. J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

With this specific image, it used to be PD and used to be one of our featured pictures on here and the Commons. It is just the reversal of copyright rules in Russia that brought it back to copyrighted status. I don't think the photographer will be impacted personally (I do not even know who owns specific copyright for that image anymore). Either having it in the lead or in the article does not matter according to NFCC. The only time the image will become an issue is if this article becomes FA and need an image for the main page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but using it for a purpose for which a free image could be used is not acceptable. You know as well as I do that the fact an image could be used in a certain location does not mean that it can be used in said location for any purpose. You're kind of missing the point of the discussion here. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I presented my arguments on the World War II talk page. I don't see why do we need to duplicate the discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
PS. I just remembered that an additional argument exists against the present image: this image seems not to meet a #3 NFCC criterion (minimal usage). In connection to that, I propose to replace it with the image File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg. Resolution of this image has been reduced by me before uploading to comply with #3 NFCC criterion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Because they are discussions over completely different uses? The fact you feel they are the same discussion acutely shows your misunderstanding of the issues. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In terms of scale and importance Eastern Front constitutes about 50% of whole WWII, so the same arguments seem to be equally applicable to both articles. Nevertheless, if you believe I misundestand something, please, explain.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this issue has been explained enough. Please stop wasting our time by replacing one free image with another (especially when the other lacks even an attempt at a rationale) and replace it with a free image. I'm trying to give you a chance to replace it here, rather than just hitting the article with a hammer. It's not working well. J Milburn (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is eligible to make a decision on whether the issue has been explained enough? You stopped to provide new arguments during last several rounds of the discussion. Frankly, our positions can be summarised as follows: I insist that the issue should be analyzed based on if a free image can really be an equal substitute of the image you proposed to remove. You insist that it is "semantics" and maintain that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:NFCC should override these considerations. Such a position resembles WP:wikilawyering and I believe it is not productive in that case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I would put this simply. In an article on x, ideally, an image of x will be in the lead. And, ideally, this will be a free image. Only if a free image does not exist/cannot be created can a non-free image be used- this is entirely consistent with NFCC#1. This is how things generally work, I fail to see why this article should work any differently. So, let us apply this to this article. The article is on the Eastern Front in World War II, so an image of the Eastern Front in World War II should be used in the lead. Do we have free images, or could free images be created? Yes. Then a non-free image should not be used. Tell me what is wrong with this reasoning in a concise way, and I will respond. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe your explanation is almost correct, however, there is one detail in your interpretation that absolutely precludes the usage of non-free image in Wikipedia. A free image is always available (although it may be not as good as its non-free counterpart, or it may describe a somewhat different event, etc.), or, alternatively, a non-free image can always be replaced with a verbal description - and that will have no absolutely detrimental effect on a WP article. Therefore, the question should be re-formulated as follows:

"Only if an equally good free image does not exist/cannot be created can a non-free image be used"

btw, that is what the NFCC rules say:

"As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion."

I believe, my interpretation of the NFCC rules is more adequate than yours, because your approach (if applied consistently) inevitably leads to absolute ban of non-free images from Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. I see you reverted my attempt to replace the disputable image with a lower resolution image. You have to agree that my edit was aimed to partially resolve the issue (NFCC minimal usage criteria) and was independent from the present discussion. I admit that, for some technical reason I failed to update a fair use rationale for this image (that is quite easy fixable). However, your revert made WP more vulnerable towards potential lawsuits, so your edit fits a WP:POINT. Since it is not recommended to harm Wikipedia to demonstrate your point, so I ask you to self-revert your change.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, my approach does not lead to a removal of all non-free content. Reread the process I just talked you through. In many cases, that will lead to the use of non-free content. Look, if what you claim on your userpage is true, you're an intelligent person. I really don't see why you are ignoring the issue here, and consistently misinterpretting what is said. Yes, I reverted your change, and yes, I agree that your intention was to create some kind of compromise. That will not be necessary- we already have a compromise between including free content and not including it (our non-free content criteria). We do not need a second compromise between our non-free content criteria and your own brand of whatever your position actually is. My edit did nothing to do with lawsuits, drop the legalese, I don't care. I most certainly will not be reverting myself, though I will be considering blocking you if you continue to add non-free images to articles without adding rationales. You can moan about technicalities all you like, but you know damn well that that is not acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the issue: I am sincerely trying to understand your logic, however, I can't so far.

Re: "I will be considering blocking you if you continue to add non-free images to articles without adding rationales." It looks like a personal attack. As I already explained, after addition of the image I failed to update the image file because WP site becomes physically unavailable for me. After a couple of hours (during that time I was busy in my real life) I found that you reverted my edit. This is the only case when I failed to update an image fair use rationale, and it is quite insufficient to speak about any block.
I propose you to remember that you are intelligent person and, instead of throwing baseless accusation, to explain me how concretely did I misinterpret your words.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reread the process I outlined in the post dated 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC), then reread your post following it. Your claim that this process will lead to the removal of all non-free content is clearly wrong; firstly, this talks only about images in leads, and secondly, it will lead to cases where non-free content is still appropriate in the lead. To use the same example as before, I fully support the use of the lead image in American Gothic. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "To use the same example as before, I fully support the use of the lead image in American Gothic." Thank you for providing this example. I believe it will help us to undestand each other. I looked at this article, and, based on formal criteria, I don't see a formal reason why cannot be a free photo of a cottage be placed into ifobox instead of a non-free image of the iconic painting (and the painting moved into the main article). Formally it is possible, and this will not have any absolutely detrimental effect on the article. However, I do not propose to do that, because I am not familiar with the subject enough, and because I believe that formal criteria are not sufficient to make such a judgement (it is a general rule for WP as whole, btw). I believe, the situation with the Khaldei's photo is similar.
Please, tell me what concreely is wrong in my words.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Look again at the thought process I outlined above. The infobox image should be an image of American Gothic- clearly, this is not possible unless we use a non-free image there. By comparison, it is entirely possible to have a free image of the Eastern Front without using the one currently in place. J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. As a devil's advocate I can argue that the cottage may also serve as a reasonable replacement whereas the painting itself can be moved into the main article, and formally you have nothing to contrapose. I fully realize that this my argument would violate a WP spirit, but such a stupid proposal is in accordance with the the literally understood policy. Do you understand this my point now?

One way or the another, this discussion is only of a theoretical value now. I proposed to replace this iconic image with a montage, and, if this proposal will be supported by other editors, I hope we will be able to move this image to the main article, so the infobox will be free of any non-free content.
If we will be able to create a good montage, the article as whole will benefit from that, so eventually our discussion may be beneficial for Wikipedia. Thank you for initiating it.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see the point you're trying to make, but I'm afraid you are wrong. Look again at the thought process I outlined above. A picture of a cottage is not a picture of AG. A free image of AG could not be created or found. Your proposal certainly is not "in accordance with the the literally understood policy". Please, go ahead and create such a montage- that's what I have been asking from the beginning. I have been asking for people with knowledge of the subject to create a suitable replacement. As for moving it to the body of the article... Well, that's another issue. If the capture and the photo are worth discussing in the article (again, you're the expert- is the picture really important enough to warrant discussion in an article like this?) then yes, absolutely, the photo would probably be a valuable addition. If it isn't, then you really have to ask yourself why you're fighting to hard to keep it. J Milburn (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Images in general

I looked at the images for this article and I can say I found a lot of issues. I found two images tagged with {{PD-Russia-2008}} and they do not qualify for that template. They were made during the war and pretty much the only things that are PD in Russia by age are works done before the war. I found a lot of images tagged with {{PD-Ukraine}} even though the battles did not take place in the Ukraine or the photographer is not mentioned as Ukrainian. I found one image tagged as a US work even though it was a German photograph of the Germans shooting Russian partisans. According to http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm if the image was PD in 1996 in German, it will be PD here. However, German has a 70 year copyright law and it won't be the 70th anniversary of the war ending until 2015. I think this image could be replaced from one from the Bundesarchiv, but that is something that needs to be searched. Some images I just speedied, others I sent to DR at the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, about the execution picture I talked about, I found a free replaced at File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-212-0221-07, Russland-Nord, Erschießung von Partisanen.jpg from the Bundesarchiv. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "even though the battles did not take place in the Ukraine or the photographer is not mentioned as Ukrainian" Most Bundesarchiv photos were made outside of Germany. With regards to photegraphers' nationality, Soviet photographers were Soviet citizens (btw, Yevgeny Khaldei was born on territory of present days Ukraine). Therefore, I don't see any problems with photos that are in PD in Ukraine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The images I deleted did not mention a photographer name, so it would be impossible to check. I did keep the Odessa picture in the article because Odessa is a city in the Ukraine. The rule of thumb is that if the specific republic is not mentioned for the location of the photo or the photographer, always use the Russian law to determine. I know there are some folks on here that are confused about the Bundesarchiv photos, but most of the time, those are German made and we have some idea of who did it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Montage

Upon meditation I realized that no single photo can serve as a infobox image in the article that tells about whole Eastern front. Although the Khaldei's photo is the best single image we can imagine, the Eatsern Front cannot be reduced only to the overwhelming Soviet success in 1944-45. Eastern front included also extremely fast and successful advance of the Axis troops in 1941-42, bloody battles in the middle of the war, immense civil losses, devastated cities, the Holocaust, death of millions of POWs, brutal anti-partisan warfare, and many similar things.
I propose to think about a collage of the same style as that in the World War II article. It would be more informative than a single photo, and it may partially resolve a non-free image issue (although the Khaldei's photo, in its lower resolution version must be in the main article). I'll try to make a collage in reasonable time and I propose to think about possible images for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A collage of free images would be a brilliant illustration for the infobox. J Milburn (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I know that only free images can be used in a collage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you already removed the image. However, the collage has not been created yet, so no free equivalent exists so far. NFCC rules do not say that hypothetical existence of free equivalent precludes non-free media from an article.
I encourage you to revert your last edit and to wait until a collage is created.
In addition, a threat to block me after a consensus has been achieved (although such a threat didn't come from you directly, I have a strong reason to suspect that some canvassing took place in that case) is simply shameful.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not deny that I discussed this with the other user a few days ago- I was discussing the issue generally on IRC and he protected the page. I did not directly ask him to intervene, and I have had no contact with him since then. If you don't believe me, tough luck, I don't care. As for your other point- the fact a replacement could exist certainly does mean non-free content cannot be used. Non-free media is not used when it is replaceable, not replaced, meaning that the NFCC certainly do "say that hypothetical existence of free equivalent precludes non-free media from an article". This is exactly the same as the way we do not allow non-free images in the infoboxes of living people, as the image could be replaced. Once again, you're demonstrating your horrendous knowledge of the basics of our NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For records, I assume people should be believed unless the opposite has been demonstrated. During our dispute you demonstrated some non-politeness, unwillingness to take others' arguments seriously, however, I have no reasons to think you lied.

However, it is worth noting that I myself neither discussed nor took any other attempt to involve any concrete editor (directly or indirectly) into the discussion of the dispute's subject (although I concede I asked for some general comment on my own behaviour during this dispute), because I believed that any kind of canvassing is not acceptable in a fair dispute.

With regards to the section's subject, I believe there is no need to continue the discussion. We both agreed that a collage may theoretically be an adequate replacement, so, if such a proposal will be supported by others, I'll prepare it soon. However, some moral issues remains. You perfectly knew that I was the person who proposed this solution, you perfectly knew that I am working on that. Therefore, after noticing a false accusation in edit warring on my talk page you had to interfere to explain a real state of things. You abstained from that and thereby demonstrated a lack of nobility. That is sad.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you were working on the collage, you continued to edit war over the image- which even you now admitted was against NFCC#1 by claiming that a collage was a suitable replacement (even if you did not realise the implication of your claim). J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that some edit warring really takes places, although I have another opinion of who is to blame. I see no reason in further discussion so far. I prepared a collage and I wait for reasonable comments on it. If the comments will be positive, the issue is resolved. If criticism will be constructive, I'll try to fix the collage accordingly. If someone will prepare a better collage, I'll be happy. If all these collages will be rejected, I'll initiate a standard procedure to resolve a dispute over the Khaldei's photo and the problem will be resolved with or without your participation. Full stop.
Faithfully yours,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It'd be great if the problem could be solved without my participation, but your carelessly sourced and mysteriously Creative Commons montage shows once again that you have little knowledge of, or respect for, our image policies. A montage is the way to go, but the current suggestion really isn't happening. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Iteration #1

Below is a first (rough) version of the infobox collage. It includes Ju-87 dive bombers in Russian sky, Tigers during the Battle of Kursk, Stalingrad liberated by the Soviets, Il-2 Shturmoviks in Berlin's sky, Keitel signing German instrument of surrender and murder of Soviet Jews by a German solder in Ukraine.

The images were taken from Commons. Does anyone see any problems with the collage or images used for it? Any suggestions on its improvement are warmly welcome.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all you can't claim copyright to this montage like you have licensed it on wikipedia. For second the images provided by the Bundesarchiv, the license has share alike conditions. Pleas read it [5]. And finally Commons needs to really look into for example at least one of the images used in the montage Russland, Kampf um Stalingrad, Siegesflagge.jpg the author is Georgii Zelma who died in 1984- meaning the copyright is going to expire in year 2054. Why is it still in Commons? -I have no idea.--Termer (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated File:Berlin offensive.jpg for deletion. Could we possibly have this one removed from the collage, unless we get some more concrete licensing info? J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How about we replace the image in question with this photo?

File:Soviet Offensive Moscow December 1941.jpg

Is this a good alternative?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the image of the Shturmoviks with the image that I posted above. I think that now it's fit to go on the main page. Any comments?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I modified the collage further to add more spectacular picture of the Tiger, more recognizable image of the Soviet T-34, more informative photo of Stalingrad (Soviet soldiers attack Stalingrad ruins), and, in addition, I re-arranged the images to maintain the WWII collage's style. If noone objects, we probably can introduce the picture into the infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Are all of the images in the Pubilc Domain, or do they have the correct PD tags? If so then I'm all for puting this into the infobox.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 14:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Some images are in PD, other are under Germany Share Alike 3.0 license (that in our case seems to be the same). All images are from Commons. I see no problem with these images, however, if someone sees, I encourage him/her to express his/her objections here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

casualties

there are at least 1,5 million missing ( the conscripts ) fix please Blablaaa (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not missing. They are among civilian casualties. See (Soviet Deaths in the Great Patriotic War: A Note. Author(s): Michael Ellman and S. Maksudov. Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 4, Soviet and East European History (1994), pp. 671-680)--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

they should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Italian engagement in late years

Hi to all. List the RSI between the belligerents is basically an error. As largely known, ARMIR was withdrawn from Russia during the first months of 1943 (and Russian defeat was one of the primary problems which led to Mussolini's fall on July 25). Despite its name, RSI's Republican National Army was not a real army (Germans never allowed a re-formation of an Italian Army, not to risk another side change as on September 8), but only an anti-resistence force to be used in Northern Italy. According to historian Arrigo Petacco, all Italian troops remained in all Europe on September 8 were disarmed and, in same cases, massacred by German troops (Captain Corelli's Mandolin can give quite a good image of those events). Under Himmler's proclamation of September 22, Italian soldiers in German military prisons could be freed if they accepted to join the new-formed ENR in Italy. According to Petacco again, ENR was not allowed to fight outside Northern Italy (and nor there, in Germany-bordering provinces). In same cases, few Italian soldiers were allowed to fight outside Italy, but as part of Wehrmacht, not of ENR. These troops were not under RSI control (which was quite theorical even in Italy), and RSI flag was never seen outside (Northern) Italy.--80.117.33.71 (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence for conflict as "Germanic vs Slavic"?

It says in the ideology section, that the Axis considered this a war against "the inferior Slavic race". There is no reference for this claim being the motivation however. Slovakia and Croatia, both Slavic nations, fought in this conflict on the German side against the Bolsheviks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Industrial output

Is the text that accompanies the statistics in that particular section of the article lifted from the same source? In any case, the text is devoid of references. Broadbandmink (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC) SAD:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.252.71 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Finland

Why is Finland mentioned in prologue, list of forces and commanders and in the list of casualties when there is hardly any mention of Winter War, Continuation War or War of Lappland? It is disputable whether Finland was a Axis power or not and were those wars part of Eastern front or separate occasions, but either way IMHO there is a conflict between charts and the article itself. Either Finland should be removed completely from this article or Winter War etc. should be added, 212.149.213.242 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "It is disputable whether Finland was a Axis power or not" It is not disputable. Finland was not an Axis power. However, Finland was a Germany's co-belligerent, it did invade the USSR few days after Barbarossa started and it did participate in hostilities in Karelia and Lapland.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Female Soviet War Pilots on Polikarkow Po-2 bombers

I am not sure whether this is significant enough for the article, but it could be interesting. In 1942 the Soviet Union became the first nation to allow women to pilot war planes. They were highly successful, too, especially the 588th night bomber regiment. The Germans called them "Night Witches", the Russians called them "Stalin's Falks". They had 30 wooden Polikarkow Po-2 bombers, flew 23.672 missions, dropped more than 100,000 bombs. Epsiloner (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Stalin Falks" was the nickname of VVS as a whole.--El gato verde (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

They flew until November 1945. 23 night witches got the title "Hero of the Soviet Union". Here is a SPIEGEL story on them, but unfortunately it is in German: http://einestages.spiegel.de/enwiki/static/topicalbumbackground/5522/stalins_himmelstuermerinnen.html Epsiloner (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Volunteers in Wehrmacht were not a separate belligerents

By analogy with the Blue division, it is incorrect to list Russian and Ukrainian volunteers in Wehrmacht (or WaffenSS) as separate belligerents. Both Russian and Ukrainian divisions were either ordinary Wehrmacht (600th German Infantry Division, Russian) or WaffenSS (14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian))divisions, their personnel took a personal oath to Hitler, and they were directly subordinated to the German military command. Neither Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia, nor Ukrainian National Committee had real authority over German military units composed from Russian or Ukrainian nationals. Therefore, they cannot be listed as an independent belligerent on the Axis side.
However, at least one case has been described when so-called Russian liberation army did act as a separate belligerent. I mean the participation of the Vlassov's army in Prague offensive ... on the Allied side. The source states:

"World War II mythology heralds the imposing 6'5" Vlasov as the pro-German warrior chief of the Russian Liberation Army. In reality he spent all but the last months of the war as persuader-in-chief of an army which existed only on paper."

"The organization and training of Russian forces actually under Vlasov's authority did not begin until November 1944, and only one division ever became operational. Pieced together from odd Russian battalions, recent POW recruits, and the remnants of Kaminskii's guerrillas, the 15,000-man formation fought briefly and ineffectively along the Oder River in mid-April 1945, then moved south against German orders. In a bizarre finale too incredible for fiction, 18,000 anti-Soviet ex-Red Army soldiers cast off their German connections and helped Czech partisans liberate Prague. By 5:30p.m. on 6 May, Vlasov's 1st Division had disarmed 10,000 Germans at a cost of 300 casualties." (Andrei Vlasov: Red Army General in Hitler's Service. Author(s): Mark Elliott Source: Military Affairs, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Apr., 1982), pp. 84-87)

In other words, the military contribution of the Vlassov's army was greater than that of such an "Allied power" as Equador of Honduras (I mean, the contribution on the Allied side). Based on that, if someone wants to list the so-called Vlassov's army as a separate belligerent, it should be listed as the Allied, not the Axis troops (although I personally do not believe it is necessary). --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're joking. It's a bad joke. Name "Vlasovtsy" is synonymously to "traitors" in Russian language or "quislings" in European ones. Vlasovtsy were in rear services. Vlasov army fought with Red Army in 09/02/1945, in 13/04/1945.--El gato verde (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fighting against Axis doesn't make automatically someone member of Allies. Fighting against Allies doesn't make automatically someone member of Axis.--El gato verde (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mr. Siebert on this one, it would be complete nonsense to list Russian/Ukranian volunteers in the Wehrmacht as another faction alongside Germany, Finland, Hungary, etc. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I think you're joking. It's a bad joke." I am not joking, I just quote the sources. In actuality, "vlasovtsy" became an umbrella term that described all Soviet/Russian traitors who served in German army. That was mostly a result of German propaganda, because in actuality Vlassov had no authority over majority of "Russian" units in German army. The fact is that the only military unit that can be considered a Vlasov's army was just one Wehrmacht division, and the contribution of this division on the German side was minimal. Ironically, the contribution of the same division in anti-German hostilities was more notable, so if someone wants to list these troops as a separate belligerent they should be listed as Allied co-belligerent. Note, however, that I did not propose to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said nothing about source. I've said about "if someone wants to list the so-called Vlassov's army as a separate belligerent, it should be listed as the Allied, not the Axis troops". Participation of Vlasov in Prague rebellion doesn't prove anything but their natures of traitors: traitors always lick asses to strongest.--El gato verde (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "That was mostly a result of German propaganda". No, it was Soviet propaganda.--El gato verde (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I didn't propose to include ROA into the infobox, the dispute is of academic value only. However, let me reiterate my point: if someone wants to include ROA it should be among the Allied co-belligerents because (i) their contribution in Prague was more prominent, and (ii) they acted independently, not as a Wehrmacht division. With regards to your "traitors always lick asses", let's discuss facts, not motives.

Most of war ROA acted as division in Wehrmacht. Is it fact?--El gato verde (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

With regards to Soviet propaganda, I am not sure if I get your point. Anyway, the image if Vlasov as a leader of some big "Rissian Liberation Army" was fostered by German propaganda with quite obvious purposes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

German propaganda had little influence on Red Army soldiers. And, of course, politruks took care about it and prevented distribution of German propaganda among the soldiers, so there was almost no way to inject idea "Vlasov is a head of all collaborationists" into Red Army, if German propaganda tried it. "Vlasovets" became synonym for every "traitor" only after the war. It wartime period they were called "traitors of Motherland" or just "traitors". For example, in 19/04/1943 there were "Decree about punishments for German-Fascist villains who are guilty in murders and tortures of Soviet civil population and Red Army POWs, for spies and traitors of Homeland from the Soviet citizens and their accomplices". As you see, no mention of "vlasovtsy". In war stories about partisans and traitors - partisans never called their traitors "vlasovtsy". In stories written during the war, soldiers didn't use "Vlasovets" as umbrella term. "Vlasovtsy" - it was after the war, when numerous trials took place. Trial of Vlasov was one of the most famous.--El gato verde (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct. However, I still do not understand how it is relevant to this thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Forget about it :)--El gato verde (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it Wiki policy to just revert stuff before trying to look at the sources given? The sources do not state that the Russian and Ukrainian military units of their respective committees were volunteers in the Wehrmacht - the Ukrainian National Army was not a Wehrmacht army. Some early elements of the ROA were directly under the committees control, later all units were be transferred, the source states "In January 1945 the KONR had a total strength of 50,000 men. On the 28th of that month it was officially declared that the Russian divisions no longer formed part of the German Army, but would directly be under the command of KONR". The units were directly subordinate to their respective governments-in-exile that had been recognized and granted independence by Germany. And that these governments-in-exile actively pursued armed conflict with the Soviet Union. I believe the source given for Tannu Tuva only states that it declared war on Germany, I don't believe Tannu Tuva in anyway fought Germany on a military basis, it was itself annexed by the Soviet Union in 1944. As for the Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland, it controlled no territory, and had no army that was directly subordinate to its command, was only a political entity. Although I'm not entirely sure what the source given for it states. Please stop being so biased. These are legitimate references. Lt.Specht (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I don't believe Tannu Tuva in anyway fought Germany on a military basis." It did. At least one reliable source (Tuva. A State Reawakens. Author(s): Toomas Alatalu. Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 5 (1992), pp. 881-895) states that "soldiers from that independent country fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44".

Re: "The units were directly subordinate to their respective governments-in-exile that had been recognized and granted independence by Germany." I don't think that recognition by Nazi Germany (during the very last days of the war) is sufficient to speak seriously about the government-in-exile. And, in addition, I am not aware of sources that state that Germany had any plans to give an independence to Russia or Ukraine after liberation them from Communists. Both Ukrainian and Russian "governments" were just puppet formation, and they were not recognized as independent even by Nazi Germany.

Re: "Some early elements of the ROA were directly under the committees control" The committee itself was a purely puppet formation, so this arguemnt is absolutely irrelevant. In addition, since the only ROA formation was the 600th German Infantry Division, what "some early elements" do you mean concretely?

And, finally, please, take into account that the changed made by you were not supported by other editors. In that situation the correct way is to try to convince other editors on the talk page, and only after that to edit the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If the source on Tannu Tuva says "soldiers from that independent country fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44"., why was my edit to Tannu Tuva reverted? How can an annexed country continue to be in a state of war? The source evidently says soldiers from the country only fought from 1943-1944. Sources on Germany recognizing the independence of the Ukraine and Russia state: "The Germans remained reluctant to recognize Ukraine's independence, and only did so in March 1945" (Abbott, Peter (2004). Ukrainian Armies 1914-55. Osprey Publishing. p. 41. ISBN 1841766682.) From 1943 onwards the name of the Russian Liberation Army, ROA, was heard with increasing frequency, and Vlasov emerged as its natural leader. At last, in October 1944, he was allowed to create a "government in exile" in the form of the Committee for the Liberation of the Russian Peoples, KONR. (Jurado, Carlos (1983). Foreign Volunteers of the Wehrmacht 1941-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 27. ISBN 0850455243.) In the source, Pavlo Shandruk, Arms of Valor, Robert Speller & Sons Publishers, Inc., New York 1959, there is a copy of the formal declaration of the act of recognition by Germany regarding the Ukraine:

"Reichsminister Alfred Rosenberg. Berlin, March 12, 1945.

To: General Pavlo Shandruk, Berlin-Charlottenburg.

In order to make possible the full participation in the decisive phase of the war against Bolshevism, and to introduce the proper order into national relations in Europe,

in the name of the German Government I recognize the acting organ of the national representation of Ukraine formed by you as the Ukrainian National Committee. I declare:

(1) The Ukrainian National Committee is the sole representation of the Ukrainian People recognized by the German Government;

(2) The Ukrainian National Committee has the right to represent the interests of the future Ukraine, and to manifest same in Declarations and Manifestoes. After final clarification of the matter of assembling those Ukrainians who are serving in the German Army, I shall make a demand that all Ukrainian units be joined together for the formation of a Ukrainian Liberation Army.

(signed) – ROSENBERG."

On the ROA, the 600th German Infantry Division was not the only military formation (that is not the correct name of the 600th Division according to the source as well), and is there a source which describes the committee as a purely puppet formation, and wouldn't that be like the Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland, and Tannu Tuva if it was? The land units comprising the ROA were as follows: The divisions were named '600th Panzergrenadier Div.' and '650th Panzergrenadier Div.', and they were formed at Munsingen and Heuberg training areas. A third division was being in the process of formation at the end of the war; and some small units were also formed, including a depot brigade, a technical battalion and an officers' school. (Jurado, Carlos (1983). Foreign Volunteers of the Wehrmacht 1941-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 28. ISBN 0850455243.) For the early elements, the KONR had its own tiny air element by December 1943 that was created in conjunction with the Luftwaffe, units described are: the 'I. Ostfliegerstaffle (russische)' (1st Eastern Squadron-Russian), this unit was disbanded in July 1944. The KONR air force, formed after the I.'s disbandment, was commanded by Gen. Maltsev, had a nominal strength of three squadrons, (fighter, light bomber and reconnaissance), a flak regiment, a parachute battalion, and a signal battalion (Jurado, Carlos (1983). Foreign Volunteers of the Wehrmacht 1941-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 27. ISBN 0850455243.) There is no mention of either of these units being under German command or authority, and the later unit is identified as being commanded by Maltsev, an ROA General. Does this all not merit the Committees being treated as belligerents? Men under their control were not "volunteers in Wehrmacht", the reason why they were evidently removed. I also agree that volunteers in the Wehrmacht should not be treated as belligerents, but this is not the case. And was adding Tannu Tuva and Poland to the article made with a consensus? The only person who has commented on Tannu Tuva has been myself, and I feel it is biased to include it while excluding other legitimate sourced belligerents. Regarding Poland, another user has expressed concern, Erikupoeg, citing concern over it being a Soviet puppet government with little military or political impact. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "why was my edit to Tannu Tuva reverted?" Because the source clearly states that Tuva declared a war on Germany in 1941 and physically participated in the EF hostilities before it had been annexed. That is sufficient to list it among the belligerents.

Re German recognition of Ukrainian independence. I am not sure the recognition of the Ukrainian national committee by Germany during the very last days of the war was the less propaganda step then recognition of, e.g., "the Terijoki Government" by the Soviets.
Re: "From 1943 onwards the name of the Russian Liberation Army, ROA, was heard with increasing frequency, and Vlasov emerged as its natural leader." Correct. The name was heard. However, there were nothing else behind that. It was a pure propaganda, Vlasov had no real authority over any military formation. His "army" existed only on paper (see the quote on the section's top).
Re: "There is no mention of either of these units being under German command or authority, and the later unit is identified as being commanded by Maltsev, an ROA General." Judging by their names, they were ordinary Wehrmacht Panzergrenader divisions. That authomatically means that they were under OKH authority.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC

On questioning who actually commanded the ROA divisions, I believe the source is quite clear. "In January 1945 the KONR had a total strength of 50,000 men. On the 28th of that month it was officially declared that the Russian divisions no longer formed part of the German Army, but would directly be under the command of KONR".(Jurado, Carlos (1983). Foreign Volunteers of the Wehrmacht 1941-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 28. ISBN 0850455243.) Ukrainian independence does not also seem purely propaganda. Otherwise they would of never allowed the Committee to act independently, form its own army and engage in conflict with the Soviets. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Decisive victory as a result

Jean-Jacques George said: "decisive" is used for individual battles that were decisive for the fate of the overall conflict (i.e. the battle of Stalingrad). The conflict as a whole was a Soviet victory, period.
But let's look at this wars:

1. Falklands War. Decisive British military victory.
2. Six-Day War. Decisive Israeli victory.
3. Spanish Civil War. Decisive Nationalist victory.
4. Invasion of Poland. Decisive Axis and Soviet victory.
5. Franco-Prussian War. Decisive German victory.
6. Second Schleswig War. Decisive German victory.
7. French invasion of Russia. Decisive Russian victory.
8. Gunboat War. Decisive British victory.

And so on. It's look like not only battles can have "decisive" outcome.--El gato verde (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The concept of decisive victory has always remained beyond me. Is there such thing as a non-decisive victory of a separate conflict then? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is intuitively clear: if one party completely achieved its goal whereas the another one completely failed the victory is decisive. If the victorious party failed to achieve all its goals, the victory is not decisive. The example of a non-decisive victoriy is the Winter war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "if one party completely achieved its goal". Or made even more.--El gato verde (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "If the victorious party failed to achieve all its goals, the victory is not decisive. The example of a non-decisive victoriy is the Winter war". USSR achieved all its goals, by the way, though paid big price for it. We may call it "decisive strategic victory", because outcome of conflict aided to keep Leningrad in Red Army hands. For example, Edouard Daladier said about it "It is great victory for USSR".--El gato verde (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So there must be more solid criterias. I will not stop on them, I'll say that Soviet victory in Great Patriotc War of Soviet nation is decisive one. Even the most decisive victory in the world history, because it saved Europe and America from the Nazi slavery.--El gato verde (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

About what? Daladier, Leningrad or saving the world?--El gato verde (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The result of the Eastern Front --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The result is obvious: USSR is militarily stronger than before the war, Wehrmacht doesn't exist (except 10 divisions kept by dear ally Churchill for operation Unthinkable) so it is decisive victory for Soviet Union. If Germany would win, Soviet Union would be completely destroyed, then Syberia is occupied by Japan, UK is destroyed in Europe, Africa and West Asia by Germany and in East Asia - by Japan (Hitler wanted after operation Barbarossa to deal with UK and it was written in that plan). Then USA and Canada would collapse after joint war against Japanese and German fleet. Whole world is under Nazi Germany and Japan.--El gato verde (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And the definition of decisive victory only covers conflicts that are part of a larger military conflict. So the intuitively clear idea appears to be wp:or. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Great Patriotic War of Soviet nation a part of larger military conflict? Do the words "decisive victory" present in Falkland War, Six-Day War and so on?--El gato verde (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely it was. I'd just like to see some reference for it being a decisive victory, that's all. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious case, so there is no need to references. Like the battle of Moscow or battle of Stalingrad.--El gato verde (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's very strange that despite you was born in USSR, you don't know that Soviet Union called victory in Great Patriotic War "great victory" and wrote it from big letter.--El gato verde (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing the size of letters here but the outcome of the campaign. And the fact that the victory in the Eastern Front was more decisive in the WWII than, say, the Second Sino-Japanese War is not obvious to neither me nor the majority of readers, so let's still see the sources. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There were no victors in the SSJW: from 1941 till the Japanese surrender the situation there can be characterised as stalemate, so we can speak about neither decisive nor non-decisive victory there. With regards to sources, Chris Bellamy (TitleAbsolute war: Soviet Russia in the Second World War Publisher Alfred A. Knopf, 2007 ISBN 0375410864, 9780375410864) on the first page of the introduction states that this conflict "was a decisive component - arguably the singe most decisive component - of the Second World War".--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Still this falls short of using the term decisive victory. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War saw the battles that turned tides one and for all: battles of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. Not Desert War, not Italian Campaign, not Normandy operation, not strategic bombing of peaceful works quarters of German cities turned tides. Spearheads of Wehrmacht were destroyed near Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk, not under Tobruk, Paris or Monte-Cassino. Japanese victory in Pacific War ove USA wouldn't mean that USSR would inevitable loser (Japan should end the war in China and strike aganst superior Red Army). On the contrary, German victory over USSR meant death sentence to USA and UK.--El gato verde (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if your point is that the Eastern Front was, by and large, a major part of WWII, and, consequently, we cannot speak about the EF's results in terms of their influence on the outcome of some greater conflict (in other words, that "the victory in the Eastern front" = "victory in WWII as whole"), I would agree that "decisive" would be redundant. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Soviet Victory over Germany" = "Victory in WWII as whole". "German victory over USSR" = "Death sentence to UK and USSR". "USA victory over Japan" meant nothing to European front, "Japanese victory over USA" meant "Possibility of Japanese attack" to USSR.--El gato verde (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing more. Japanese army was very inferior to Red Army in tanks, artillery, tactics and operational art. Japanese army had no chances.--El gato verde (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's open "Correspondence of the Council of Ministers of the USSR with the U.S. Presidents and Prime Ministers of Great Britain during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945., V. 2. M., 1976, pp. 204 " ("Переписка Председателя Совета Министров СССР с президентами США и премьер-министрами Великобритании во время Великой Отечественной войны 1941-1945 гг., т. 2. М., 1976, с. 204").

The United States is well aware of the fact that the Soviet Union bears the weight of the fight.

— F. D. Roosevelt

Red Army decided the fate of German militarism.

— W. Churchill

French people know what Russia has done and know that Russia has played a major role in their liberation.

— C. de Gaulle

Will I continue or are no more any objection to write "Decisive Soviet victory"?--El gato verde (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Quotes selected by a totalitarian regime and presented out of their context are hardly reliable. A comparative analysis of the weights of the theaters of WWII must be cited here instead. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, evil totalitarian regime tortured Roosevelt, Churchill and de Gaulle and forced them to say "Red Army is the strongest, it decided the fate of German militarism". I wanna listen to the stories, how diplomatic correspondence could be biased, for example, in what context Churchill could say "Red Army decided the fate of war" and, despite of this, deny the decisive role of Red Army. Comparative analysis? There is nothing to compare: 70% of Wehrmacht were destroyed on Eastern Front. Of course, British historian Norman Davies is totalitarian liar or he was caught by KGB and forced to say in "Sunday Times" in 05/11/2006: How we didn't win the war... but the Russian did[6]. It's look like KGB forced Norman Davies to say:

The attack on the Third Reich was a joint effort. But it was not a joint effort of two equal parts. The lion’s share of victory in Europe can be awarded only to Stalin’s forces and it is a fantasy to believe that he was fighting for justice and democracy.

Of course, KGB told him to make deception measures: for example, Davies was forced to say "it is a fantasy to believe that he [Stalin] was fighting for justice and democracy".

Since 75%-80% of all German losses were inflicted on the eastern front it follows that the efforts of the western allies accounted for only 20%-25%.

And - for deception - KGB forced Davies to sing song about "annexed Baltic states" (which asked USSR to join to it), "unprovoked aggression against Finland" (it's look like there was no quote from Finnish president "Every enemy of Russia should be friend of Finland").

The Third Reich was largely defeated not by the forces of liberal democracy, but by the forces of another mass-murdering tyranny.

Evil totalitarian regime tortured scientist and forced him to mix "Soviet Union played crucial role in WWII" with "Billion humans had been executed by Stalin personally"!

The Americans arrived too late and in too few numbers to play the dominant role.

Very cool. British historian knows about decisive role of Soviet Union, but person has been born in this country - doesn't :)--El gato verde (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All of this is about victory in Europe whereas there is still no analysis cited, not superficially performed by a Wikipedia editor, between different theatres of war. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not my problem, that you didn't see the words about percentage of German losses and percentage of Allied forces. It's not my problem that you didn't see analysis. It's not my problem that you even don't wish to look at admissions of Allied leaders about big role of Soviet Union. If German victory in France deserves to be "decisive", then Soviet victory over Germany deserves epithet "decisive" too.--El gato verde (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen your analysis but unfortunately this is Wikipedia, which allows no WP:OR. So please cite a comparison. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I cited Norman Davies.--El gato verde (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course the eastern front was very important, no one is denying this. But what El gato verde does not seem to understand is that decisive is generally used for individual battles that decisively affected the course of the war. i.e., the battle of Stalingrad was decisive for the eastern front. Then again, the eastern front is not conceived as a battle but, as its name indicates, as a front, that is, a conflict between two sides. So of course the Soviet victory was decisive, since they won that conflict. Likewise, Western front was a decisive Axis victory in 1940, and a decisive Allied victory in 1945, the Pacific war was a decisive Allied victory, and so on. Listing each victory in each front does not make sense, since each front is a conflict per se in a worldwide conflict, and each one is decisive. So of course, the winner's victory is decisive, since they have won. This is a bit like putting "decisive Japanese victory" as a result of First Sino-Japanese War, or "decisive United States victory" in American Revolutionary War.

What I mean is that "decisive" goes for individual operations or battles. "Decisive victory" is fine for battle of Stalingrad, of battle of Berlin not for the Eastern front as a whole, since this was a war between the USSR and Germany (not to mention a front in a world war, each front being decisive in a war). Of course it is decisive in a war that the winner wins. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless we get a secondary source that defined the term "decisive victory", the question of usage or not usage of the word "decisive" should be resolved using a common sense. Although your considerations sound quite logically, some counter arguments can be put forward. For example, one party can be victorious, however, it may be in position when it is unable to enjoy the fruits of its victory (or it appears to be unable to achieve all its goals). The examples of the victories that were not decisive are the victory of the USSR in the Winter war (although the USSR got the territorial concessions it insisted in, it failed to convert Finland into its satellite, and instead got one more serious opponent in the conflict that started next year), or the Entente's victory in WWI (although both UK and France were formally victorious, the main war's cause, German expansionism and militarism, had not been weeded out, and French spirit appeared to be so undermined that it was unable to seriously resist to Germany in 1937-40). In that sense, the Soviet victory was in EF was really different, and we do have a ground to call it "decisive".--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Finland was enemy to USSR even before Winter War, by the way :)--95.55.228.31 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "decisive victory" across Wikipedia is that people usually add it based on their personal judgment instead of providing sources. Currently, the two cited sources don't back up the statement that the Eastern Front was overall decisive. The first source is a quote from Churchill saying the "Red Army decided the fate of German militarism". That shows the Red Army played a critical role, but it doesn't mean the victory was overall decisive. The second source cites the German losses on the eastern front, but a decisive victory is not defined purely by the number of losses, so it's original research. I think there were far too many Soviet casualties for the victory to be safely called decisive, but our personal opinions are irrelevant. Unless there's a source that explicitly uses the term "decisive victory", I'll change it to simply "Soviet victory". Spellcast (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there were far too many Soviet casualties for the victory to be safely called decisive.

That shows the Red Army played a critical role, but it doesn't mean the victory was overall decisive. It mean that victory of Red Army was decisive. Critical role = decisive role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.52.70.108 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Polish date of entry

The date for the "Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland" entry into the war is given at 1943, evidently stated by the source listed with it. However, the RTRP article states that the RTRP was itself created on the night of 31 December 1944 (Davies, Norman, 1982 and several reprints. God's Playground. 2 vols. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. ISBN 0-231-05353-3 and ISBN 0-231-05351-7). It's impossible for the date of entry to be earlier than it's actual creation date. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to World War II states on page 701 that the Union of Polish Patriots was established in March 1943 as a puppet government in waiting and started raising a Polish Army in the Soviet Union shortly afterwards. Page 100 states that the first 'Polish' unit, the Kościuszko Division, first saw combat in October 1943. As such, 1943 appears to be the appropriate date for the entrance of a nominally independent Polish force into the war. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Does it state that the Kościuszko Division was directly subordinated to "Union of Polish Patriots" command? Even if it was, this would seem exactly similar to the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia, and the Ukrainian National Committee, which raised armies and saw combat. It should not be included while others are excluded. I might add that I'm not at all opposed to the Union of Polish Patriots be listed, as long as all combatants are given fair treatment. Lt.Specht (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on page 100 it states that the division was "formally under the direction of the Union of Polish Patriots" and was formed without consulting the Polish Government in London. Given that the Union of Polish Patriots was a de-facto Government in exile at the time which went on to form the post-war Government, it seems reasonable to treat 1943 as the entry year. I don't see any reason to apply a one size fits all model to the other nominally independent puppet governments through - these didn't ever form government. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The article only deals with the time frame on the Eastern Front though, future events that happened seems irrelevant, who is to say that the aforementioned Committee's would not of gone on to become actual sovereign governments as the Germans had promised and decreed? And I'm not sure if the Union of Polish Patriots went on to form the post war government. There were a dozen or so Polish provisional type entities, I believe the Provisional Government of National Unity went on to form the post war government, though the Union of Polish Patriots could of been a predecessor to it. Anyway, individual sources on entities such as the Patriots and the Committees should be followed in relation to the timeline of the article. The sources for the Patriots and the Committees are virtually the same it seem. It seems irrelevant to judge them by looking at future events past the conflict. Lt.Specht (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted you. Given that the Soviet Union did win the war and their puppet Polish Government in exile did evolve into the actual Polish government (which, as you note actually happened during the war), there seems to be no need to exclude them on the grounds of what may or may not have happened in the hypothetical situation in which Germany won the war as you appear to be suggesting. Moreover, what I've provided on Poland is referenced to a highly reliable source. I'd be interested in other editors views on this matter though. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Poland should be linked to the Union of Polish Patriots, if that's what the source says. And I would be interested in your opinions on other matters related to this. Lt.Specht (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Tannu Tuva

Tannu Tuva was annexed in 1944 by the Soviet Union and became the Tuvan Autonomous Oblast ("Tannu Tuva." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 31 Mar. 2010 [[7]]) ("countries involved in World War Two " Aviation during World War II. Century of Flight. [[8]]). The source listed with Tannu Tuva evidently says that Tannu Tuva is somehow still at war. However, the source also says "soldiers from that independent country (Tannu Tuva) fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44". The source seems to be unreliable. It jointly states that Tannu Tuva only fought on the Eastern front from 1943-44 (indicating its date of annexation), then tells that Tannu Tuva is still at war past 1944. It may have been that the district in the Soviet Union, Tuvan Autonomous Oblast, was in a state of war with Germany, but itself was part of the Soviet Union. That would be like listing the Free State of Prussia, which was an internal part of Germany, as a separate entity. Also noted is that Tannu Tuva was under effective Soviet control for the duration of the war ("countries involved in World War Two " Aviation during World War II. Century of Flight. [[9]]). The date of Tannu Tuva ceasing to exist as any recognizable state should be its date of exit. I believe that it should be removed completely however, the only country in the world that recognized Tannu Tuva as an "indepedent country", and had diplomatic relations with, was the Soviet Union. (McMullen , Ronald. "Tuva: Russia's Tibet or the Next Lithuania? ". Friends of Tuva (FoT). [[10]]). None of the other Allies did, nobody. It's "state of war with Germany" would seem irrelevant considering that Germany never had diplomatic relations with them while they were an "independent country",and the sources mention of "soldiers from that independent country..." is simply to vague. The word "soldiers" could mean two men. The source is to unreliable to support. It contradicts itself and clearly takes a biased approach by labeling it "independent" while it was most surely a Satellite state of the Soviet Union, that effectively controlled it for at least the duration of the war. It should be removed. Lt.Specht (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The source clearly states that Tuva was an independent state and that its solders did participate in the hostilities. The statement about alleged unreliability of the source is not justified: the article has been published in thw western peer-reviewed history journal and, therefore, has been wetted by scientific community. Per WP:SOURCES, the source belongs to the most reliable sources. If someone has doubts about its reliability, he/she should go to WP:RSN. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Tannu Tuva was clearly annexed in 1944 and ceased to be any recognizable state. States which no longer exist do not qualify for belligerents. And, does the source say how many soldiers? Which divisions? And if they were actually under Tannu Tuva command, instead of just its soldiers being in Soviet divisions? The majority of sources also conclude that Tannu Tuva was not an "independent state", the burden of evidence is against this source. Should also add that, (David J., Dallin (1971). Soviet Russia and the Far East. Archon Books; the University of Virginia. p. 84. ISBN 0208009965), states that THE COLONY OF TANNU TUVA - No other territory under Soviet control or influence has constituted as a clear-cut a type of colony as Tuva. and it also comments on Mongolia's international recognition in relation to Tuva's (p. 82), No other nations, with the exception of Tannu Tuva, itself not recognized anywhere, recognized the Mongolian Republic. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Below are some quotes that answer your questions:

"Actually, Stalin's empire also swallowed a fourth state during World War II-Tuva, a country the size of Greece (170 000 sq. km.)-but what happened to that country on 11 October 1944 passed unnoticed by the world. Even Soviet citizens were initially denied knowledge of a widening of their country's borders. The first news of the event in Russian was published not in Moscow but in the 1 November 1944 issue of Tuvinskaya Pravda, published in Kyzyl.1 The events in Tuva in the autumn of 1944 are shrouded in silence even now-a silence which it is difficult to explain. It is sad that even Western accounts of World War II fail to mention either Tuva as a participant in the war (soldiers from that independent country fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44), or the expansion of the Soviet Union at the expense of Tuva's territory.
Forgetting Tuva while remembering the disappearance of the Baltic states seems even more perplexing when we recall that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had been part of the Russian empire since the 18th century, while Tuva had been in the Russian sphere of influence only from 1912 and formed part of it from 1914 to 1921.

"The period of independence of Tuva, a country squeezed in between Russia and Mongolia, was short (1921-44), and its contacts were limited to its nearest neighbours. Nevertheless, there are sufficient grounds to speak not only of an independent internal and foreign policy, but also to argue that Tuva set an example to the world by abandoning Stalinist socialism in 1932/33 and holding its own for a whole six years."

"In November 1911 Mongolia, which had also been subjected to China, declared itself independent and elected the local spiritual leader or bogdo-gegen as head of state. This provided an impetus also to the neighbouring Tuva. On 15 February 1912 the local elite declared Tuva an independent country, expressed their desire to install the supreme spiritual leader as head of state, and addressed a plea for protection and defence to Russia."

"In fact, Tuva only became independent three years later. Both in Mongolia and Tuva the course of events was influenced by the Red Army. After the crushing of the bands led by the Baltic baron von Ungern Sternberg, the power of the bogdo-gegen was restored in Mongolia and a foundation was laid for that country's independence (not recognised by China until 1946). The decision about the independence of Tuva was made at the meeting on 26 June 1921 in Chadan, but not all khoshuns (districts) were represented there."

"..the Supreme Soviet decided, on 28 February 1992, to publish all the secret documents linked with 'the voluntary entry' of Tuva into the USSR. The most astonishing thing which was revealed was that juridically Tuva is still now at war with Hitler's Germany!"

(Tuva. A State Reawakens Author(s): Toomas Alatalu Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 5 (1992), pp. 881-895)

I can provide other sources upon request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I still believe that soldiers from that independent country fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44 is far to vague and could mean lots of things, e.g. one could say that "soldiers from independent Spain fought on the Soviet-German front", as soldiers who originated in Spain did fight on the front, however they were volunteers in the German army (as could be the case with Tuva and the Soviet Union). I think it is important to know exactly in what form Tuva's "soldiers" fought, what exact units there were, and if they were actually under Tuvan command. All the belligerents currently listed had at least a corps sized force under their command, and the names of the divisions and commanders are easily accessible through sources on other article's. In regard to Tuva's full independent the sources do seem to disagree. With the former source I mentioned labeling the country a mere colony of the Soviets, however it does not mention the exact time periods, the six years after 1932/33 could of very well been a time of less Soviet influence. I think the international recognition factor is something also to take into consideration as well. Looking back at a previous post you mentioned that "In addition, Tuva and Mongolia should be added as Allied belligerents (I have several sources sating that those two countries were independent states, although strongly dominated by the USSR. In other words, the relations were similar to those between Germany and, e.g. Slovakia." The comparison with Slovakia seems a little off, as a comparison with any of the listed countries would be, as Slovakia was recognized by every member of the Axis as an independent country, and by several other neutral nations, whilst the only countries in the world that recognized Tuva as a country were the Soviets and Mongolia, none of the other countries it was supposedly allied with. The Tuva is still now at war with Hitler's Germany! in Alatalu's source seems rather non–encyclopedic and honestly troubling, and would be a complete joke to follow this as you suggested before, one would have to put (1941-Present) for its years in the war (noting that Tuva never regained "independence" after being annexed in 1944, strange how it could be at war while part of Russia today). Another troubling thing in relation to that statement is that it states, the Supreme Soviet decided, on 28 February 1992, to publish all the secret documents..., this would of been simply impossible, as the Soviet Union was dissolved on December 8, 1991, and the Supreme Soviet dissolved along with it, it was not in existence on 28 February 1992. If you have any other sources in relation to the specific divisions and units it would be helpful, along with other things I've mentioned. I've been looking for anything that might elaborate on Tuvan divisions on the front, and have found nothing so far. Lt.Specht (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

New Battle of Stalingrad template

I've created a template for the Battle of Stalingrad (see foot of the article). It is still at a rudimentary stage and if you would like to comment on it please visit the template talk page and add your comments there (Template talk:Battle of Stalingrad). Please amend the template, correct it and add whatever you feel is appropriate. The basis for inclusion is pretty much the frequency with which any of the items is mentioned in Beevor's book on the battle. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Suvorov POV

User:DJ Sturm added a paragraph putting forward Suvorov's thoughts as established fact. I removed it. DJ Sturm also changed the Soviet preparations section to point not to Operation_Barbarossa#Soviet_preparations but to Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy. The former link is more balanced. DJ Sturm then added some text and references establishing the German POV that the USSR was preparing for immediate war, when the established consensus among most historians is that the Soviets were about one year away from considering themselves ready to attack. I tagged the bit, noting it needs to be balanced. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed the other para about Suvorov's views. Suvorov's argument is generally considered a fringe view, and it's better to have nothing about it in this article than only one side. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Russians vs Soviets

I've just noticed someone replaced the word "Soviet" with the word "Russian", although no sources has been provided in support for such a change. I'll revert it soon if no serious arguments/sources will be provided in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

'Russian' is totally inappropriate - the country in question was the Soviet Union and a high proportion of the Soviet troops were from outside of Russia. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Mention of mass rape and Gulag

Why was the mention of Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army removed from the leading section? It was the greatest mass rape in history, having an effect to the life of 2 million girls and women and resulting with death of 240,000. If that war crime can be considered of "too small proportion", then I'm not sure, did for example death marches touch so many lives and therefore deserve to be mentioned there.

Gulags were surely part of the Eastern Front, just as extermination camps behind German front were. Gulags were full of people who were arrested by the Soviet authorities in frontline area. DJ Sturm (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

GULAG camps were not extermination camps. I can provide a reliable source (not a website or a magazine article) that explicitly states that. High mortality of GULAG prisoners during the war was a result of a food and medication shortage, not of the deliberate policy. With regards to the rapes, this is a highly controversial subject. The estimates of the number of victims vary by an order of magnitude. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that the number of rapes is assumed to be equal to the number of abortions in a Soviet controlled zone: the abortion was free for every woman who claimed to be raped by Soviet soldiers. It is hard to tell now what was a degree of coercion in each concrete sex. For instance, it is well known that in American controlled zone German woman had to practice a kind of "commercial sex" (I deliberately avoid the word "prostitution" because it bear some negative connotation, which is unneeded in that case), and, according to some memoirs, the same took place in the Soviet controlled zone. Of course, by no means it was a voluntary sex, however, it would be incorrect to count every abortion made after such a "sex-for-food" as a rape.
Anyway, I believe that, although, without any doubts, mass rapes should be mentioned in the article, they should be removed from the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't claimed that Gulag were extermination camps. What I say, is that they were clearly related to the Eastern Front. OK, if there is no place for mass rape in the leading section, then why are death marches, ghettos and pogroms different - then we should remove those too? DJ Sturm (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DJ Sturm, there was no implication in what was added to the lead, only what was from already in the article. There's no reason why they cant be mentioned in the lead, they're on par with other things mentioned. They're very much appropriate to be mentioned in the lead. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:LEDE, the lede section "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." Did GULAG belong to the most important EF events? Judging by the article (as well as by what the sources say), I wouldn't say so. GULAG had only a tangential relation to the Eastern Front: it was the USSR's internal affair, and the only significant connection between GULAG and the Eastern Front was the desperate shortage of food the USSR in 1942-43 that caused a huge number of excess death among GULAG inmates. With regards to the rest, I would say that the NKVD power significantly decreased during the war: the only mass repressions during that periods were mass deportations of ethnic groups suspected in collaboration with the Germans (exactly the same what the Americans did with their ethnic Japanese and German compatriots). One way or the another, although GULAG should be mentioned in the article, it definitely has no place in the lede.

Re: "if there is no place for mass rape in the leading section, then why are death marches, ghettos and pogroms different - then we should remove those too?" The death marches, pogroms and ghettos are well known events that caused a huge amount of deaths. Most of these events are well documented and are indisputable. The rapes are a highly controversial subject. It should be discussed in the Soviet war crimes article, not in the EF's lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You just claimed Paul the rapes, this is a highly controversial subject and cited the WP:LEDE ...summarize... any notable controversies, the result: the rapes shouldn't be in the lede section. I'm not getting it, the rapes were "a highly controversial subject" just that in your opinion not notable?...since like you pointed out 'any notable controversies should be included' but not the rape controversy. Or am I missing something? How about the fact that Soviet soldiers had a choice to get shot from the front or to their backs by the NKVD Security Troops. Is that a notable fact in the context?--Termer (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Just re-read the words you quoted: ...summarize... any notable controversies. Only notable controversies should be placed in the lede. Is the rape of German woman (the real scale of which is still unknown) notable enough for the Eastern front article? No. As I already said, this controversy is notable for the Soviet war crimes article, not for this one. With regards to the barrier troops, they existed only on paper: after some short period the Red Army command realised that the barrier troop had the opposite effect, so the idea to use such troops was quietly dropped after few months. For source, see "Ivan's war".--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Right then, so the Holocaust too had only a tangential relation to the Eastern Front and it was Germany's internal affair. Gulag and mass rapes are too well-known events that caused a huge amount of deaths, but it doesn't seem to be enough. Let's talk about the Holocaust too only in German war crimes article. DJ Sturm (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that parallelism is correct. GULAG and the Holocaust were not similar for several reasons. (i) The large scale Holocaust (I mean not persecution of Jews but the program of their mass extermination) started during the EF events (Wannsee conference), whereas the Great Purge started four years before that, and essentially ended by 1940 (except in the Baltic states and Poland; however, I didn't propose to remove the words about mass deportations from the lede, and these words are still there). (ii) The Holocaust took place mostly in the newly conquered territories and was directly connected with the conquests, whereas majority of GULAG inmates came from the USSR's mainland before the Eastern Front events started (again, I do not talk about the deportees, however deportations are mentioned in the lede). (iii) The Eastern Front was represented by Nazi propaganda as a crusade against the world Jewry, whereas Stalin's repressions against "the enemies of people" essentially ceased during the WWII (he renewed them later, but it is a different story).
With regard to the rapes, they are far less known and much more controversial than the German war crimes. Even the number of victims is unknown, and the estimates vary by more than one order of magnitude (from tens of thousands to millions).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

On the mass rapes, this is very much established fact. If you look over the Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army article, Soviet_war_crimes#1944.E2.80.931945_2 section of the Soviet war crimes article, you will find that the content and the sources all agree with one another. There is no question to the controversies legitimacy. What you seem to be proposing are quite frankly fringe or revisionist theories. A very reputable and reliable author, Antony Beevor, has stated that the mass rapes were the greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history and that At least 100,000 German women were raped in Berlin during the Soviet invasion, and about 10,000 died as a result, many committing suicide. It was far worse in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia, which took the brunt of Russian revenge and where the civilian population was decimated and about 1.4 million women were raped. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/16/1052885399546.html) I'd say that the greatest phenomenon of mass rape in human history is a notable controversy without a doubt, and should be listed in the lead, everyone (except Paul) seems to be agreeing with this. Lt.Specht (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than go around in circles, it would be helpful if you could all suggest text. Given the massive scale of the war crimes which took place on the Eastern Front they do belong in the lead, but in a neutral and sensible way (eg, there's no need for equal coverage to provide 'balance' - the incidence of crimes should determine this). Incidently Paul, it is not at all the case that Stalin's repressions "essentially ceased" - they were toned down somewhat, but continued on a massive scale, and it's been estimated that a million people died in the Gulags each year during the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "essentially ceased" is not the best wording. Stalin's repressions ceased only after his death. "Toned down" is more correct. With regards to "million people dying in GULAG each year", you probably use some outdated source: recent sources provide a precise fugures of GULAG mortality, and these figures are much lower than one million per year (see, e.g. File:Gulag Prisoner Stats 1934-1953.PNG; the source is the article in a peer-reviewed western scientific journal, and we have no ground to question these numbers). The maximal mortality took place in 1942 (~300,000 deaths) and it coincided with a desperate food shortage in the USSR. Moreover, after 1941 the number of prisoners decreased sharply, partially due to mass releases. With regards to the text, as I already wrote, the mention of mass deportations does belong to the lede, and I already added it. By contrast, GULAG, execution of prisoners by NKVD and rapes hardly belong to the lede, because they are not extensively discussed in the article (correctly).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Re rapes. Below is the quote from peer-reviewed scientific journals that demonstrates my point, namely, that the rape issue is highly controversial (and is not limited with the Soviet occupation zone):

"A second matter necessary to establish the context for our story involves the wave of rapes and sexual violence that occurred in Central Europe in 1944/45. As Allied and Soviet troops battered their way into the Third Reich, a negative assessment of all-things-German governed their thinking. Given this "come-as-conqueror" mentality, superimposed upon even more primal desires to breakdown resistance and reinforce male domination, some soldiers saw fit to brutalize and rape German women, a situation that particularly marked the invasion of the eastern German provinces by the Red Army. With Soviet troops openly encouraged to regard German women as plunder, it is no surprise that nearly two million German women may have been raped. Even in western Germany, however, there was a considerable spate of raping by French and American forces, particularly during April and May 1945.

Even more disturbing than this forebearance was the fact that the boundary between rape and consensual sex was blurred in the minds of some men, so that the reputation of German women was actually called into question by the disaster that had befallen them. One Ruhr metalworker later remembered vividly a comment made to him by a Black American serviceman: "The German soldiers fought for six years, the German women for only five minutes." Rather than inspiring a spirited defence of his countrywomen, his only reaction to this remark was one of shame.31 Similarly, in Upper Austria, a man reported that "ein Neger" had raped one of his neighbours, but that, strictly speaking, the latter was "a whore anyway." Such blame-the-victim sentiments were definite precursors to anti-fraternization attitudes; in particular, the dichotomy of supposedly soldierly resistance versus female receptivity was soon to become a popular theme in anti-fraternization propaganda."

"In the Soviet zones, there was no lack of hatred for Russian occupation troops; the wild raping and looting of the spring of 1945 had created a background with no real parallel in the western zones. Even here, however, there was evidence of voluntary fratenization, particularly because Soviet military police (like their French counterparts) turned a blind eye to the formal nonfratemization rules supposed to govern the behavior of Red Army troops. After everything that had happened during the initial Soviet advance into Germany and Austria, enforcing nonfratemization seemed pointless. Although fear of the Soviets was pervasive, there was considerable evidence of liaisons between Russians and German or Austrian women; Swedish diplomatic personnel in Berlin reported as early as May 1945 that Soviet officers and troops were often seen arm-in-arm with German girls. Some of these relationships stemmed from fear-women made "friends" with decently-acting Russians to get guardians for themselves and their children; some comprised the same form of semi-prostitution evident in the western zones; some were built on a more genuine emotional interplay, particularly because Soviet troops were often billeted with German and Austrian families." (Dangerous Liaisons: The Anti-Fraternization Movement in the U.S. Occupation Zones of Germany and Austria, 1945-1948. Author(s): Perry Biddiscombe Source: Journal of Social History, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Spring, 2001), pp. 611-647)--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the original text which was added is restored. "It also included Gulags, NKVD prisoner massacres, population deportation and mass rape of German women." However, it might need to be reworded a little and placed in along with the already listed crimes. To save talk space, just look at the relevant article's and content within them, they are all notable and controversial enough to be in the lead. And Paul, you also claim to have preserved what was added about deportation in the lead, but fail to mention why you delinked it, and did not explain so in your original reverting of what was added. I'd like to know if any other editors support restoring the original text in one way or another. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This 2007 article ("The unspoken secret: Sexual violence in World War II.") is from International Psychogeriatrics, a peer Reviewed Journal, published by Cambridge Univ Press:

“ Sexual violence in World War II is still a secret. At the end of World War II , it is estimated that about 1.4-1.9 million German women were raped by soldiers, mainly those of the Red Army. Because of repeated gang rapes, the total number of rapes was even higher. Rapes by U.S. and French soldiers are also documented, but were not as frequent; 10% of the women committed suicide. The number of murdered women is not known. Approximately 200,000 children were conceived by rape. It must be emphasized here that it is known that German soldiers belonging to the SS and to the Wehrmacht committed sexual violence, mainly on Russian and Jewish women, before the rape of German women by Red Army soldiers. The number of rapes is not documented but a letter of the German military police reported a "high number of rapes" at the Russian front. Nazi Germany committed crimes against humanity, culminating in the inexcusable mass murder of 6 million Jewish people. So far, no study on the post-traumatic burden of the women raped at the end of World War II has been published. Such a study could help to understand wartime rape from the victim's perspective and its effects on later life, on post-traumatic symptoms and on post-traumatic growth. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved) ”

So yes, it should be mentioned in the lead. Phoenix of9 00:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the sexual violence in World War II is not a secret. According to Grossman (Atina Grossmann. A Question of Silence: The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 42-63 Published by: The MIT Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778926), this card was successfully played by both Goebbels propaganda during 1944-45 and in occupied Germany after the WWII:

" Nor were these rapes silenced among the women themselves, again at least initially; as I looked at the literature of the postwar years-diaries, memoirs, and novels-I found rape stories everywhere, told matter-of-factly, told as tragedy, told with ironic humor and bravado.15 Women told their stories to authorities from whom they expected specific forms of redress, and they also obsessively retold their stories to each other and to their daughters. They lived, interpreted, and represented their rapes in a particular historical context which they participated in creating. We need to understand how the experience of, the reaction to, and the memory of these rapes was framed by the specific historically toxic conjuncture in which they took place."

Secondly, the number of up to 2 million rapes is a result of extrapolation

"But, hard—or even soft—facts are hard to come by and unreliable. It has been suggested that perhaps one out of every three of about one and a half million women in Berlin at the end of the war were raped—many but certainly not all during the notorious week of "mass rapes," from April 24 to May 5, 1945, as the Soviets finally secured Berlin. The numbers cited for Berlin vary wildly; from 20,000 to 100,000, to almost one million, with the actual number of rapes higher because many women were attacked repeatedly. Sander and her collaborator, Barbara Johr, speak, perhaps conservatively, of about 110,000 women raped, many more than once, of whom up to 10,000 died in the aftermath. At the same time and despite their virtual fetishization of statistical clarity—they announce on the basis of Hochrechnungen (projections or estimations) that 1.9 million German women altogether were raped at the end of the war by Red Army soldiers."

And, finally, the story of rapes cannot be taken out of historical context:

"In this particular case, then, on the most mundane (and melodramatic) level, the problem is that this is not (yet another) "universal" story of women being raped by men, as Helke Sander would have it, but of German women being abused and violated by an army that fought Nazi Germany and liberated death camps. Mass rapes of civilian women also signaled the defeat of Nazi Germany-a historical event I learned to call Befreiung (liberation) but which Germans usually described as Zusammenbruch(c ollapse). Therefore, beyond arguments about the veracity of women's reports or pseudostatistical investigations (although I do think that much conventional historical research remains to be done), I am interested in "de-essentializing" and historicizing the rapes Sander addresses in her film; these events cannot, I think, be usefully understood by quick comparison to Kuwait or Yugoslavia, nor can they gain macabre comic relief by editing in clips of U.S. Army anti-venereal disease films."

Therefore, I don't think the rape of German woman should be mentioned in the lede separately, although the words "mass rapes" (committed by both Allied and Axis soldiers) can (although not necessarily have to) be in the lede as an example of the overall brutality of the war.

With regards to GULAG etc., I saw no fresh arguments for re-introduction of the GULAG into the lede. Links to deportations can be added, however, I have no idea how to introduce the links to several deportations (committed by both sides) simultaneously. NKVD massacres were overshadowed by subsequent German atrocities, so, although they are in the article, I see no reason to introduce them into the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh...Axis forces did not perpetrate a mass rape on the Eastern Front, and most Soviet civilians in German military jurisdiction zones would retreat with the Germans in fear of Soviet reprisals, rape, and pillaging (von Manstein, Erich; Powell, Anthony G.; Hart, B. H. Liddell; Blumenson, Martin [1955] (2004). Lost Victories: The War Memoirs of Hitler's Most Brilliant General. Zenith Press. p. 188 ISBN 0-7603-2054-3). It is clearly the academic consensus that the Soviets perpetrated the rape of 1.4-1.9 million German women. The sources which you are sighting are fringe and not mainstream view per WP:FRINGE, and the source which you just sighted appear to contain things that are just merely the author's opinion and original research Mass rapes of civilian women also signaled the defeat of Nazi Germany-a historical event I learned to call Befreiung (liberation)..., etc. Anyway, I believe that on the issue of the mass rape of German women, at least 4 editors so far support it being in the lead, while 1 is opposed. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Norman Davies' well regarded book Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory states on pages 339–340 that while German troops did not commit rapes on anything like the scale Soviet troops did, both the Waffen SS and Army committed many sex crimes on the Eastern Front - the key sentence is "In all, the soldiers of Nazi Germany committed rape on a massive scale, but given the size of the opportunity presented by their occupation of much of the European continent, it might not be considered excessive". Your claim that Soviet civilians preferred Germans to Soviets is plainly nonsense and the fact that you're claiming the discredited memoirs of a German war criminal is a reliable source tends to undermine the argument you're making. I'm somewhat bemused that you're claiming that articles in academic journals published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are a fringe source! Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The sources which you are sighting are fringe and not mainstream view". Please, feel free to go to WP:RSN if you have any doubt in reliability of the sources I use.

Re: "Axis forces did not perpetrate a mass rape on the Eastern Front" It is hard to establish the amount of woman raped by Wehrmacht soldiers, however, the number of civilians killed by Germans on the Eastern front far exceeds the number of woman raped by the Soviets. In addition, since the number of rapes was established mostly by the abortion records, and the only thing German woman needed to get free abortion was to claim that she was raped, obviously the number of rapes obtained from these records is equal to the number of undesired pregnancies.

Re: " It is clearly the academic consensus that the Soviets perpetrated the rape of 1.4-1.9 million German women." The historian Norman Naimark concludes in his careful forthcoming history of the Soviet zone, "It is highly unlikely that historians will ever know how many German women were raped by Soviet soldiers in the months before and years after the capitulation."(Norman M. Naimark, chapter on "Vergewaltigung," in The Russians in Germany: The History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949)--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to Nick, what I was referring to is that Axis forces did not commit a mass rape, as in a mass rape on the scale the Soviets committed. I agree with your conclusion regarding Davie's book. My claim about the civilians is not complete nonsense at all. Manstein is a primary source, do you have a source which directly states his memoirs are discredited? Relevant to also note is that individuals such as Winston Churchill were in uproar over Manstein's trial and conviction on two of seventeen charges (Churchill donated money to Manstein's defense). Manstein would also later serve as a senior adviser to Konrad Adenauer, and served on committees which advised the German parliament on military affairs. Nor was he a Party member or supporter of Hitler. Is he still a completely "discredited" man? If you look over the article for the historical narrative I cited, Verlorene Siege (Lost Victories), there is no mention of its credibility in question, which you claim. In fact, notable and reliable historian, Martin Blumenson, has commented that Lost Victories is the best book of memoirs on the German side and it is indispensable for understanding the conditions and circumstances of Hitler’s war. understanding the conditions and circumstances. Per WP:FRINGE, a source can be fringe if it widely differs from mainstream view. Just because something is published by MIT does not make immune to this possibility. None of your accusations of what I've stated have merit. Lt.Specht (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Myth of the Eastern Front by Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies ll discusses the shortcomings of von Manstein's book, and the fact that he was both a prominent participant in the war and was convicted of serious war crimes means that his memoirs are anything but neutral. I'm not sure what the fact that prominent people continued to respect von Manstein has to do with his book. WP:FRINGE states that "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication" - that condition is clearly met by the viewpoint being published in a highly reliable academic journal. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies ll obviously disagree with Martin Blumenson and some other authors on the books credibility. Lt.Specht (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Manstein is a primary source" Correct. Per WP:PSTS, "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." With regards to Western German memoirs in general the following quote may be helpful:

"West Germans were by no means silent about the "horrifying totality" of the past in the first decade after the end of the war. However, their memories were selective; about the parts of that "totality" in which some Germans were perpetrators they had less to say than about the parts that encompassed their own experiences as victims. About this past-the past of their own loss-their ability to mourn literally filled volumes." (Robert G. Moeller. War Stories: The Search for a Usable Past in the Federal Republic of Germany . The American Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 1008-1048. Published by: American Historical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2169632).

--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert said: "Secondly, the number of up to 2 million rapes is a result of extrapolation"

Thats a rather silly thing to say. 30 million war dead is also an estimation. It's in the lead.

Paul Siebert said: "And, finally, the story of rapes cannot be taken out of historical context". Noones trying to take it out of the historical context. That was a rather irrelevant thing to say. Phoenix of9 20:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "30 million war dead is also an estimation." Firstly, "Estimation" and "extrapolation" are two different things. Estimation of war dead was made based on various different data, starting from demographic data to archival records of war deaths. These records can be incomplete, so some assumptions have to be made to compensate for these incompleteness. Nevertheless, different estimations made by different scholars based on different data and different assumptions give about the same results (~27 million of war deaths for the USSR within post-war borders), implying that these estimations are more or less correct. By contrast, extrapolation is the process of constructing new data points outside a set of known data points. In our concrete case, the data for Germany as whole were obtained based on the assumption that the rapes in other parts of Germany occurred with the same intensity as in the Greater Berlin area. Such an assumption may be questionable, so the results of such extrapolation can be (although not necessarily are) unreliable.

Re: "Noones trying to take it out of the historical context." I would say, the opposite takes place. The attempt to mention the rapes in the lede, as well the Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army article as whole is a direct attempt to take this events out of the historical context for two reason. Firstly, as the source quotes by me states, the story of mass rapes of German women by the red Army solders was "not (yet another) "universal" story of women being raped by men ..., but of German women being abused and violated by an army that fought Nazi Germany and liberated death camps", so the bare mention of rapes without necessary reservations creates a wrong impression of neutrality. Secondly, the relative lower abundance of rapes of non-German woman by Wehrmacht solders is explained by the fact that sexual contacts between the German men and Untermensch woman was considered as a kind of Zoophilia by Nazi laws. Nazi preferred to kill Untermensch woman, not to rape them, so the Red Army solders saw German woman as human beings whereas Wermacht solders saw Slav or Jewish woman as animals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that rape estimates were calculated based only on extrapolation from data from Greater Berlin area? Source? Quote?

This source (BURDS, J. (2009). Sexual Violence in Europe in World War II, 1939-1945. Politics & Society, 37(1), 35-73. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database) also uses 2 million number and gives many sources:

“ Driven with the passion for vengeance, Soviet soldiers perpetrated horrendous

atrocities on women in the nations of the German allies. Besides a yearning for vengeance, there was also an overweening sense of entitlement among soldiers in the victorious Red Army—the presumption that with victory there came the rights of sexual use of conquered women. It is estimated that some two million women and girls were raped in East Germany alone in the early months following Soviet occupation.77 Most of the violations were gang rapes, usually in front of German eyewitnesses—especially before the eyes of husbands, sons, and fathers. The atrocities were not confined to rape: forced impregnation was a deliberate tactic so as to haunt German society for decades to come with Aryan- Untermenshchen mixed-blood children that would bear the unmistakable features of the Slavs and Central Asians. Likewise, German women were not just murdered, their bodies were often desecrated. Eyewitnesses recalled grisly scenes of women’s naked bodies nailed spread-eagled on the sides of barns.78.......77. Perry Biddiscombe, “Dangerous Liaisons: The Anti-Fraternization Movement in the U.S. Occupation Zones of Germany and Austria, 1945–1948,” Journal of Social History 34, no. 3 (2001): 611–47, 614; Antony Beevor, The Fall of Berlin 1945 (New York: Viking, 2002); Catherine Merridale, Ivan’s War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939–1945 (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006), 283–84, 305, 309–14, 318–20; Norman Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945–1949 (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1995), 69–140; and Alfred Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944–1950 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993). On Jewish women victims of Soviet rape, see Friedman, Speaking the Unspeakable, 62–73.

”

Currently the article mentions many atrocities: "It bore the bulk of the Holocaust as the site of nearly all extermination camps, death marches, ghettos, and most pogroms." Leaving out rapes and gulags violates WP:NPOV. Phoenix of9 02:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

May I ask what exactly it is you are trying to conclude from the "not (yet another) "universal" story of women being raped by men ..., but of German women being abused and violated by an army that fought Nazi Germany and liberated death camps"? Was the average German woman involved with death camps operated by the German government? Or were all of them members of the NSDAP? How can you compare the rapes of women that had nothing to do with policies or enactments of Nazi laws to them? And the same army that abused and violated them was the army of the government which committed crimes such as the Katyn massacre - and others - Soviet war crimes. Something to add to this discussion to further establish that they were a notable controversy (as this appears to issue in question). Is that the mass rapes were "semi-officially sanctioned" by Soviet authorities - and even by the Soviet Head of Government - Stalin.

"Commanders generally turned a blind eye to the rapes. When the Ukrainian Jewish intellectual Lev Kopelev tried to intervene to save a German woman from a group of rampaging soldiers, he was accused of 'bourgeois humanism' and imprisoned for nine years. It was only much later that any punishment was handed out. The reason why Russian generals accepted such appalling lack of discipline was that rape was condoned at the very top. Stalin told the Yugoslav communist leader Milovan Djilas, 'Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?' Added to the semi-official sanction, the Red Army was sex-starved. Its soldiers had been fighting for for years, and in most cases they had not received compassionate leave. The raping became worse again after 23 June 1945, when many female soldiers were sent back to Russia. It became a part of everyday life in the remove villages of Burgenland and Lower Austria where it continued until the end of 1946 or the beginning of 1947.

Source: (MacDonough, Giles (2007). After the Reich. Basic Books. p. 26. ISBN 0465003370)

Also, in your comparison of Wehrmacht soldiers and Untermensch women, there is a relevant comparison as to why the Russians "raped and murdered so many women" - an irresistible form of vengeance against 'superior' women - the best way to humiliate them.

"There has been much discussion of why the Russians raped and murdered so many women on their march to the River Elbe. They were certainly egged on by Ehrenburg and other Soviet propagandists who saw rape as an expression of hatred, and therefore good for morale. Soviet soldiers had also been shown pictures of the Nazi victims of Majdenek, where the dead had simply been identified as "Soviet citizens'. The Germans had been in Russia; they had burned their towns and villages and posed as a Herrenvolk - a nation of the lords.* The Slavs were racially inferior, no better than Helots.† In the circumstances rape must have seemed an irresistible form of vengeance against those 'superior' women and the best way to humiliate them and their menfolk. The worst offenders, it seems, were soldiers from Belorussia and the Ukraine - areas invaded by the Germans. The older soldiers and those having higher education were the lead likely to rape. The higher the standard of living the Russian soldiers encountered, the more they raped. They were disgusted by the plenty, the comfortable houses and the well-stocked larders they found, which stood in such contrast to the poverty they knew from home. The manor houses or caste was particularly prone.

*The assistant Soviet commander in Germany, Sokolovsky, specifically mentioned the Herrenvolk to justify the rapes. † In February 1943 Hitler drove past a group of Russian slave-labourers working on the road outside Zaporozhe. Filled with loathing he remarked, 'It is quite right to make Slavs do this, those robots! Otherwise they would have no right to their share of the sun!'

Source: (MacDonough, Giles (2007). After the Reich. Basic Books. p. 26. ISBN 0465003370)

I also agree that leaving them out violates WP:NPOV. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re: "How do you know that rape estimates were calculated based only on extrapolation from data from Greater Berlin area? Source? Quote?" The quote and the source have already been provided in this thread. I reproduce them again specially for you:

"It has been suggested that perhaps one out of every three of about one and a half million women in Berlin at the end of the war were raped—many but certainly not all during the notorious week of "mass rapes," from April 24 to May 5, 1945, as the Soviets finally secured Berlin. The numbers cited for Berlin vary wildly; from 20,000 to 100,000, to almost one million, with the actual number of rapes higher because many women were attacked repeatedly. Sander and her collaborator, Barbara Johr, speak, perhaps conservatively, of about 110,000 women raped, many more than once, of whom up to 10,000 died in the aftermath. At the same time and despite their virtual fetishization of statistical clarity—they announce on the basis of Hochrechnungen (projections or estimations) that 1.9 million German women altogether were raped at the end of the war by Red Army soldiers."(Atina Grossmann. A Question of Silence: The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 42-63 Published by: The MIT Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778926)

Re: "Leaving out rapes and gulags violates WP:NPOV." Firstly, not "gulags" but GULAG. Secondly, I already provided the arguments to explain why concretely the mention of GULAG should not be in the lede. Please, provide serious counter-arguments, not bare references to WP policy. Thirdly, I have no objections to mention rapes (not "rapes of German woman by the Red Army"), along with other examples of violence against civilians (mass executions of civilians by Wehrmacht and Einsatzgruppen, mass usage of slave labour in the Third Reich, as well as other similar atrocities seem to be not included explicitly in the lede). And, finally, could you please explain where concretely your quote was taken from? The first source (“Dangerous Liaisons...") definitely contained no such facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "May I ask what exactly it is you are trying to conclude from..." That is simple. Since most sources, including the sources quoted by you, stress a connection between the Wehrmach's actions in 1941-44 and rapes of German woman by Soviet solders, simple mention of rapes (taken out this context) is pure hypocrisy, and references to WP:NEUTRAL are absolutely irrelevant. A casual linkage between 1941-44 atrocities (mass murders, enslavement, genocide etc) and subsequent rapes should be shown in the lede.

One more consideration. The stories of mass rapes became a tool to represent German civilians (and, implicitly, Germany as whole) as innocent victims of barbaric hordes from the East ("Stories of wartime victimization of women thus provided one important source for a popular, even official, version of German history sympathetic to Germans' recent experience. Allied bombers and the Nazi Party could serve as the villains in tales of wartime victimization, but memories of flight and rape had an especially profound resonance in the formative years of the Federal Republic."The Hour of the Woman: Memories of Germany's "Crisis Years" and West German National Identity Author(s): Elizabeth Heineman Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 354-395 Published by: American Historical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2170395 ).

Re: "... the best way to humiliate them." Correct. However, keep in mind that only human being, not animal, can be humiliated. The Red Army solders saw German woman as enemy humans, whereas the Wehrmacht solders took Slavs and Jews as animals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

mass executions of civilians by Wehrmacht and Einsatzgruppen, mass usage of slave labour in the Third Reich, as well as other similar atrocities seem to be not included explicitly in the lede Those are already mentioned in the lead, as previously pointed out, links to all the current articles which there are on them, adding more text would be fine. Leaving out Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army is wrong and not neutral. A casual linkage between 1941-44 atrocities (mass murders, enslavement, genocide etc) and subsequent rapes should be shown in the lede. That is not a legitimate excuse, only a reason for the mass rapes which took place. Lt.Specht (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The para we are talking about is:

"It was the largest theatre of war in history and was notorious for its unprecedented ferocity, destruction, mass deportations, and immense loss of life. It bore the bulk of the Holocaust as the site of nearly all extermination camps, death marches, ghettos, and most pogroms. Various figures average a total number of 70,000,000 dead because of World War II; with over 30 million dead, many of them civilians, the Eastern Front represents about a half of this total, and has been called a war of extermination. It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower."

Please, show me where "mass executions of civilians (except Jews) by Wehrmacht and Einsatzgruppen, mass usage of slave labour in the Third Reich, as well as other similar atrocities (against non-Jewish population)" are mentioned there.

Re: "That is not a legitimate excuse, only a reason" Correct. However, to list two waves of violence in a row as two independent events, whereas in actuality strict and obvious casual linkage existed between German and Soviet violence is not neutral either.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. It is not clear from the current lede's version by whom the listed atrocities were perpetrated (neither Nazi nor Wehrmacht were mentioned in a context of ghetto, death matches etc), and who were the victims. In connection to that, I am not sure if explicit mention of "rapes of German woman by Soviet soldiers" is in accordance with the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

conscripts

Why are the soviet 1-2 million dead fast conscrips forgotten ? Blablaaa (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC) the "Wordl War II casualties" article gives 1.5 . they shoulöd be included.

Two Western scholars, Michael Ellman and S. Maksudov (Soviet Deaths in the Great Patriotic War: A Note. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 4, Soviet and East European History (1994), pp. 671-680) have analysed Soviet population losses during WWII. I reproduce their conclusions in full:

"(1) The majority of Soviet war deaths were non-military. Most of the Soviet citizens who died in the war were civilians.

(2) The official figure from 1990 onwards of the population loss of the USSR as a result of the war was 26-27 millions. This figure consists almost entirely of excess deaths. It also includes, however, to an uncertain extent, net emigration. It is an estimate of 'population loss during the war' and includes both victims of Soviet repression and Soviet citizens who died fighting on the German side. The figure of 26-27 million fits in well with current knowledge and seems relatively reliable. The main area of doubt concerns the possible underestimate of the population of the territories annexed in 1939-40 (and remaining in the USSR after 1945) and in 1944-45. This may well have produced an underestimate of the total population loss, but the underestimate of the number of war deaths would be less of an underestimate because of the substantial emigration from the newly annexed territories.

(3) The 26-27 million figure is not a complete estimate of the population loss by the territories which formed the USSR after 1945, since it excludes the population loss of almost 2 million Germans, Finns and Japanese expelled from (or who fled from) territories occupied by the USSR.

(4) The 26-27 million figure understates the demographic effect of the war since it excludes the results of the fall in the birth rate during the war. Allowing for this, the hypothetical demographic loss of the USSR resulting from the war at the end of 1945 (i.e. the difference between the actual population on 31 December 1945 and an estimate of what it would have been then in the absence of the war) is roughly 35-36 million. The precise figure depends on the counterfactual assumption made about the birthrate in the absence of the war (if the prewar crude birth rate is used it would be about 40 million) and the estimate used for wartime births. The total demographic effect at later dates is still higher.

(5) The current official figure for military losses is 8.7 million. There are reasons for thinking that, as an estimate of deaths caused by the war of those serving in the regular armed forces (including the border troops and internal troops of the NKVD) it is about 900 000 too high. On the other hand, it excludes deaths among conscripts captured before they reached their unit and deaths of non-conscripted fighters not in the regular armed forces, such as partisans, local anti-aircraft defences, police in frontier areas, militarised transport employees, militarised fire service employees etc.

(6) The main unresolved issues at present in this area concern the breakdown of non-military casualties, although some preliminary work has already been done on this."

My conclusion is that the figures presented in the article are correct and adding 1.5 million would be a synthesis. They are already listed as civilian losses.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

my conclusion is 1.5 million fast concrips are military. listing them as civilians is faking statistics and excluding 1.5 million soldiers is .... . the world 2 casualties page includes them , then this "subpage" should not do different . if u want do it different than u should discuss with the guys who decided to include them on the world war 2 casualties pageBlablaaa (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for itself. If most reliable sources state that the military losses of 8.7 million is a correct number (or probably even too high), we have simply stick to these sources. With regards to the WWII casualties article, it clearly separates military losses and conscript reservist losses, and it is correct, because these men even got no armament, were not assigned to any military units, and, by all commonsensual criteria were civilians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

i will ask the guys of the world war 2 casualties page what they think about the conscripts. i really dont understand why this page includes them and u dont want here on this subpage. That wiki is no source is correct but not what i mean. the world war 2 casualties page carefully written and i simply ask myself why u think u know it better like them. who decided here that conscripts are civilians? regarding the too low: even on the battle of kursk(43) research of red army soldiers graves show that many of them were not even listed men. but i guess we both will never know how much soviets really died. Blablaaa (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)