Jump to content

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

What would the next Patriotic War be called?

Patriotic War, the Great Patriotic War, the Greater Patriotic War, the Greatest Patriotic War, etc, etc?

-G

I guess people here like to exaggerate soviet losses do they? mentioning 2 million military deaths for Germans, wow, real funny. :) And of course no civilian deaths for Germans are mentioned. western accounts of soviet casualties are used only (of course they are hugely exaggerations, as usual), and only western accounts of german losses are used (we all know how germans liked to admit losses, Kursk battle is the example). When will wikipedia become not-biased? :(

Concerning occupation of eastern europe. Soviet union could NOT by definition occupy eastern europe, since according to preceeding agreements, parts of eastern europe were PART of USSR. Can USA occupy Texas? Read history books dear wiki users. 74.98.216.68 01:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Actually, the term patriotic war was used (at least during Soviet times) as "liberation war" - it wasn't limited to those two wars. Whenever an invader would be fought on home soil it would be a patriotic war. However, the war of 1812 had a profound effect on the Russian culture, thus being known as the Patriotic War. In turn, when a similar event (invasion by an army of "unified" Europe) occured, albeit at unprecedented scale (largest invasion in world history), it was rather logical to call it the Great Patriotic war. Hopefully, the Russians will not have to think of name for a next war of such scale on their soil. With respect, Ko Soi IX 05:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


The Soviet term for the 2nd World War is Velikaya Otechestvennaya Voina, the "Great Fatherland war". --Mjjohansen 13:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Hi, responding to RfC. I've added a tag for the Military History project to this talk page. Could someone summarize the dispute? From what I see there appear to be two disputes. The first concerns occupation conditions and war crimes. I agree with suggestions to create a daughter article and address those issues in better depth. The second dispute seems to condern the casualty tables at the bottom of the page. Purely from a technical aspect, those tables could use some attention. I doubt the tables would be legible to a colorblind person. Also see Wikipedia:Citing sources and their recommendations about footnotes. The heading "Russian turncoats" looks POV. I'm not sure what other objections there are to these tables. Best wishes, Durova 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Pertaining to the POV aspect: Deng believes that this paragraph: The war inflicted huge losses and suffering onto the civilian populations of the affected countries. Behind the front lines, atrocities against civilians in German-occupied areas were routine, including the Holocaust. German and German-allied forces treated civilian populations with exceptional brutality, massacring villages and routinely killing civilian hostages. Both sides practiced widespread scorched earth tactics. Once the war shifted to ethnic German territory, rape of German women was commonplace.
Deng feels that the above paragraph gives too much due to German suffering when compared with the Soviet side, which I feel is wrong. I believe that the paragraph adequately addresses both sides while remaining nice and concise. As for casualties, I think an expert with a 3rd opinion would come in handy, as there are conflicting sources. As for the tables, I think they should be moved to the respective daughter articles concerning WWII production (and touched up a bit visually). Ksenon 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Stop puting words in my mouth If you do it again I will report you, nothing that ksenon says what I believe or want is true.

What I have said time and time againt but what ksenon dosent see and misses every time I point it out is that you need to mention that the Germans RAPED more soviets and for a longer period of time then the soviets raped the germans. If you are going to mention that the Soviets raped the germans the you must ALSO mention that the germans raped the Soviets. The germans raped the Soviets first, on a much larger scale and for a much longer period of time.

As for the casulties it is clear that ksenon does not want an objective view. He has removed any mention of Soviet turncoats time and time again. Then he quoted a source that said 200k turncoats were KIA that same source says that the Germans lost 5.5 million men in the war but this he ignores.

I am not saying that the 200k is wrong but KIA is not the same as total dead. Also when ksenon edited that section he removed all turncoats dead and did not even add the 200 to the total sum.

Also ksenon would remove any mention of that the germans used slave labor in their industry, that the axis produced more raw materials then the Soviets and the axis gained land whilst the Soviets lost it and by this the axis gained even more raw materials and the Soviets lost raw materials and that the Soviets lost alot of their industry.

(Deng 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Rape is a side-effect of any war, though it was never of such a heroic scale as the Soviet gang-banging in Germany, that's why it warrants specific notice.
Please post what you believe the casualty figures are, and we can discuss them. As for the slave labour and industry, no where did I omit such information, unless it was duplicated by you throughout the article. Anyway, I suggest this version as the basis for further work, as the current article is kind of a mess. Ksenon 12:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The germans raped more Soviets then the Soviets raped germans also the germans did it for a longer period of time and that has been proven. Again and again you make claims without any evidence what so ever. And that version of the article is as wrong now as it was then and is filled with missleading and incorrect facts. But the version I have made is neutral and only has correct facts. And where did you delete the information about slave labour? A better and more correct question is where didnt you delete it. A clear example of you removeing it can been seen here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29&oldid=35671009

(Deng 15:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Please could someone comment the issue, after having taken into consideration User:Deng's following passages:
As the axis advanced into the Soviet Unnion they started their extermination campagin. The whole Soviet society should be destroyed, the country turned into a mega slave labour camp and all Soviets should be exploited to the max and then thrown away like toilet paper. And that is exactly what the axis did. All Soviet females between 15-25 were sent to brothels, killed, used in medical experiments or sent to factories. All Soviet females 25 or older were killed, used in medical experiments, sent to slave labour camps. All Soviet males were killed, used in medical experiments or sent to slave labour camps. All Soviet children were used in medical experiments, killed or were used to clear mine fields. The Axis would march the Soviet children in columns into mine fields. [1]
What can happen after unprotection, if the same user re-starts his NPOV-campaign in the article page? Constanz - Talk 12:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a very difficult and delicate subject. Thank you for taking it on: many editors are not that brave. There's an essay I'd like to refer you to: Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. It's about de-escalating conflicts informally - getting things back on track when they slip off the rail.

In order to do the subject justice I suggest you begin a new branching article with a title something like War crimes of the World War II Eastern Front. Break it down topic by topic and supply references, preferably line citations. This is a subject that deserves great dignity and tact. With respect for all parties, it isn't a useful path of discussion to compare the suffering of one group against another. Just lay out the best evidence you can find. Explain the scope and dynamics of each sub-topic. If certain points are under scholarly dispute, then outline the different scholarly positions and name leading authors who favor each view. Best wishes, Durova 06:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The article at this time has a very high amount of simply wrong information in it, and it is far too long. It should refer to the main pages on individual campaigns that are being or have been created, such as Battle of the Crimea (1944). It is impossible to treat the German-Soviet war on one Wiki page.

Factual inaccuracies:

  • "Almost all Soviet turncoats would join Vlasov army." Well no. Most of those who joined the Germans were put into German divisions in logistical units (so-called Hiwis) or would be in Ostbattalionen all over Europe (many in Normandy). The so-called Vlasov Army was comparatively small.
Note that Vlasov army importance should not be overstated. RLA was sent to front line only in 1945 when the war was already lost for Nazis; much more Russians and Byelorussians had joined Germans in people's militias or as police forces (fighting partisans). Solzhenitsyn writes about these men in his magnum opus.


I agree. Also, there was an effort at the beginning of the war by the Germans to recruit Russians in exile; I remember mention of a recruitment office in France - I believe it is mentioned in Wilfried Strik-Strikfeldt: Against Stalin and Hitler. Memoir of the Russian Liberation Movement 1941-5. Already at the beginning of the war, German resourceful commanders recruit local assistance in scouting assignments, the Hilfswillige - "Willing to help". Vlasov is captured Juli 12th 1942; in August 1942 he submits a memo to the Geman leadership about the perspectives for creating a Russian group to work with the Germans to rid the USSR of the Stalinist leadership. After this, his name is used for propaganda purposes, but only in late 1944, the German leadership agrees with the Vlasov group creating a regular army force. One division is created and fully equipped, the next only partly. So the Vlasov group doesn't absorb a lot of volunteers. --Mjjohansen 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "The USSR, for its part, lost at least 8.7 million soldiers, 4.7 million would die in combat and 4 million would die in German POW camps. The Soviet Union were to lose 6 million POW and out of those 6 million, 4 million would be killed. " - Well, no. The Soviet Union based on Krivosheev, cited in Glantz 'When Titans Clashed', lost 11.3m KIA and MIA, including 500,000 non-battle casualties. It lost a further 18.3m wounded and sick. MIA and POW were 4.5m, not 6m, and I highly doubt that 4m of these died. 2-3m more like it. Still horrible, but let's try to get this right. Any Soviet casualty number quoted anywhere is not worth believing unless it uses Krivosheev's book.

That nummber has been changed to 10.6 million because this nummbers is wrong :

Official Soviet losses:

Killed in action & died of wounds--6,329,600

Died of disease, accidents ect.------555,500

MIA ,POW Deaths---------------------1,783,500

Total losses-----------------------8,668,600


Total POW-MIA 4.559 milion combined, less 2.776 freed in 1945 yields a net loss of 1.783 million.


Source:G. I. Kirosheev Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7

This is a better nummber


Losses per Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 931651071


Killed in action & MIA-----------7,600,000

Deaths of PoWS-------------------2,600,000

Deaths Partisans-------------------250,000

Deaths Militia---------------------150,000

Total losses--------------------10,600,000


Total POWs 5,200,000

And if you are going to comment then atleast comment on something that is new and not some old old old thing.

I comment on the article here. If I want to comment on another article with different numbers, I will do so on the talk page of that article. Regards Andreas 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I do go here Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed and comment just make sure the last edit was made by me.(Deng 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC))
  • "and to return the Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Moldavian territories in the North and North-Eastern regions of Romania (Northern Bucovina and Basarabia)." No idea if this is correct, but you really want a Romanian/Moldavian history expert to confirm or change it.
  • "At 04:45 on 22 June 1941, four million German, Italian, Romanian and other Axis troops burst over the borders and stormed into the Soviet Union. " Incorrect, Romanian, Italian and other axis troops joined over the course of the next days, weeks, and months.
  • "At the crisis of the war, in autumn 1942, Stalin made many concessions to the army: unitary command was restored, as were insignia such as shoulderboards — stripped from tsarist officers after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Elite divisions were given the traditional "Guards" title." The Guards title was given as early as the battle of Moscow, if not before. A much more important change was the re-institution of unity of command, i.e. freezing the Commissars out of the Chain of Command.

Comments:

  • "Stalin disregarded human life in order to achieve his goal of victory. This included terrorization of his own people, as well as mass deportation of entire races. All these factors resulted in tremendous brutality both to combatants and civilians, which was not paralleled on the Western Front." Hitler disregarded human life very low too. It should not be 'races' but 'populations'.
  • The Kursk section is faaaaar too long.
  • A word on Overy - if the numbers of Soviet KIA are any guide, I would not trust his other numbers on production either. A better source needs to be found. I suggest Harrison's Accounting for War, or look at this research paper by him - he is the head of the very prestigious Economics Department at Warwick University in the UK, so I'd take him over Overy.
  • As for some claims on the talk page. The number of German women raped by Red Army soldiers is unknown, all we know is that it was not little. Since that is the case, how can anyone say that German soldiers raped more Russian women? I can not see any reason to ruin this article over this point.

I hope this is a bit useful. Andreas 19:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Dispute

This dispute has several aspects; I will try to fairly describe them and others can weigh in as they feel appropriate. I acknowledge I am an involved party, not a neutral observer. I believe the dispute is about both process and content. DMorpheus 17:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1. NPOV: The article is occasionally edited in ways that reduce NPOV. Of course this is not unheard of in wikipedia, but in this particular article it has gotten out of hand since Dec 2005. Because much of this dispute (but not all of it) has to do with the issue of atrocities, the suggestion has been made several times that we create a sub-article to handle this issue and possibly compartmentalize the dispute. Other POV issues exist but none as contentious as this.


2. Edit War in Opposition to Consensus: This is the major process issue. Since December 2005 the edit rate has been quite high, sometimes with dozens of reverts or edits in a few days. IMHO the consensus of editors is fairly consistent, with user Deng generally acting in opposition to the consensus. While I do not claim that all other editors agree 100% with each other, they seem to share a broadly-consistent view. For example, user Ksenon made the suggestion (above) to revert to an older version of the page. Several other editors agreed. Only user Deng disagreed. Many editors who have previously been active voiced no opinion. The record shows that user Deng's (often nearly identical) edits are often rapidly reverted by many editors. The fact that several editors have reverted him repeatedly shows this is not a personal dispute. That is, this is not a case of one user edit warring with another. It is a consensus, or at least many editors, warring with one user. If I recall correctly, this page was locked primarily due to this problem.

Dont put people togheter in catagories first of all if a person hasent said yes i am with you then they arent with you. To assume that someone who changed something in a post a made by me dosent mean that they agree with you about everything or anything for that matter. And this statement that everyone is against me and I am wrong in everything I say is just something YOU see. Also the problem is ofcurse that ksenon has deleted information in articles left and right and has done that in many diffrent articles and many times to such an extent that have people have commented on his page for deleting items and by doing so creating a misleading article. Also the suggestion made has many errors and is extremly missleading in some areas. And it should also be noted that DMorpheus deleted huge amounts of information on the test page under the pretense that it would be better to create smaller articles the thing is that he just deleted things and did not replace them with anything. And the test page which I created is a much more balanced and accurate article then the one DMorpheus suggests.(Deng 18:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC))



3. Personal Attacks: The problem of achieving some consensus is made more difficult by the use of personal attacks on the discussion page and on the user pages of some editors. Here I think the record of block logs and the language of the discussion speaks for itself.


There are probably other issues but these are the ones that appear most salient to me. It seems to me the quality of the article will solve itself if these process issues are resolved. I also believe that the accuracy of the article will never be improved until this happens.

In an effort to move this forward

I have edited a bit in the proposed page. I must say that I can not find any fundamental problem with it other than that it is far too long and that the battle descriptions should be shortened. If that is not done, there is a risk that newer edits on the respective battle pages will not be reflected in the main article.

This does not mean there are no errors or questions remaining about the proposed page. I am sure there are some, that is normal in an article of this length, but I am quite impressed with the effort spent on the article and the attempt to source. I also believe it is reasonably balanced. I have added verify tags where I felt more work is needed.

I would therefore propose to:

a) Replace the currently locked article with the proposed article I linked to above since it is of much higher quality.

b) Archive this discussion in an attempt to calm things down, and to give those who participated in it the chance to make peace

c) Keep the new article locked, and ask for comments to be made on the talk page to avoid an immediate edit war.

d) Open the new article once we can be sure that a reasonable consensus has been reached on the talk page.

I have no idea if these suggestions are in line with Wiki policies, but it appears to me that something needs to be done to overcome the impasse. That's my 2 pence. Between them and another 73 pennies you can get a cuppa at a greasy spoon. Regards Andreas 08:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


I think Andreas edits to my test page are very good and I agree with him and his edits to the page.(Deng 12:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC))


What about just allowing a separate article titled The Great Patriotic War, I am under the impression that this term means more to people that "eastern front wwII", it became a mythic term depicting soviet heroism and nationalism. As such it is a phenomenon on it's own. Keep the history on this page and the discussion about the whole cultural spiel aside.

I don't accept this

I refuse to accept the industrial output part as reliable. For example, it claims that Italians produced only 2000 tanks during the war, while Italians produced over 3000 M13/40 and M14/41 tanks, the most numerous Italian tank types during the war.

Kurt Leyman


Campaigns of World War II : Day by Day" which is written by Chris Bishop and Chris Mcnab, pages 244-252

That is the source that I got the information from if you dont agree give me another source.

(Deng 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Tanks of the World, 1915-1945, written by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis states that more than 3000 M13/40 and M14/41 tanks alone were produced.

Kurt Leyman


Can you break it down how many per year and also if this nummber includes self propelled guns or not

(Deng 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC))


"Can you break it down how many per year" Unfortunately no'. "if this nummber includes self propelled guns" No, it does not. The figure I gave you is the production number of M13/40 and M14/41 tanks. Italian armour production from 1941 to 1945 should be about 5000, including self propelled guns.

Cheers.

Kurt Leyman


About is a bad thing exact is much better but give the page nummber(s) in the book and I will update the test page. 

(Deng 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC))


Another source:

Production of 

  M13/40   799
  M14/41  1103

"WORLD WAR II TANKS AND FIGHTING VEHICLES - AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO", edited by Christopher F.Foss, pp 150 

  "Eight hundred M13/40 were built and over 1000 of the M14/41"

"THE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MILITARY VEHICLES", Ian V.Hogg & John Weeks, pp85 

  Semovente 47/32 SPG "280 were built in 1941 and 1942", ibid, pp148

there were of course some more tanks and SPG's but I do not have their numbers.

hope this helps and hope everyone keep their cool, please. Thank you. (Bankrobber70)

I will research this further; it appears that some very wide variation exists on this subject. For example, the CommandoSupremo web site gives the following totals for Italian AFV production in the period 1940-45. Admittedly this cannot include AFVs in inventory with the italian forces prior to Italy's entry into the war in 1940, but the better Italian AFVs did not emerge before 1940 anyway. So the AFVs these numbers miss will mostly be tankettes.
All numbers are total for the period.
L6/40: 300
M11/39: 100
M13/40: 710
M14/41: 695
M-15/42: 219
P40: 102
Command tanks on the M-11/13/14 chassis: 165
Semovente da 47/32: 459
Semovente da 75/18: 467
Heavier Semoventes (90mm, 105mm, etc): 334
Armored cars of all types: about 1200


So, a rough total for semoventes (self-propelled guns) is 1,260, while total tanks is 1,926. I am not counting command tanks, which had no gun armament. I am not counting the CV-33/35/L3 series tankettes, which were armed only with light machineguns.
However, while this is a good starting point, none of this directly translates into Italian contributions on the Eastern front:
  • Many of these vehicles were used in North Africa or Italy itself, and were thus never deployed with forces in the USSR.
  • As far as I know, none of the P40 tanks were used outside Italy itself. Also, most of the heavy semoventes were used only in Italy. Together these represent the best-armed Italian AFVs.
  • As far as I know, none of the M-11/13/14/15 series tanks (47mm gun) were used outside Italy and North Africa. Also, the semovente 75/18 was used primarily in North Africa and Italy. The primary Italian AFVs on the Eastern Front were the L6/40 light tank (20mm gun) and the L6-based Semovente da 47/32 (47mm gun), plus the AB41 armored car (20mm gun).
  • Italian units were also deployed in Yugoslavia, and these units had AB41 armored cars, CV33/35 tankettes and L6/40 tanks.
Thus a rough figure for the maximum possible Italian contribution of AFVs for the Eastern Front might be:
L6/40: 300
Semovente da 47/32: 459
Armored cars: unknown.
That's a total of 769 tanks and SPs, plus the unknown number of armored cars.
However, this number is so different from those posted by Deng and KurtLeyman that I will keep looking into it before we settle on a figure for the article. I will post more if I can find another source. DMorpheus 15:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


The biasedness problem

I'm really losing my patiance with it. Deng claims in this talk page here as if German occupation in the USSR meant that all Soviet men were sent to slave camps and all the women were raped or sent to brothels [2]. Etc. Etc. Now he has decided to present his (sometimes ungrammatical, sometimes misspelt) biased information in Eastern Front/Proposed page.

He decided to remove obviously true sentences (it is proved, clear and simple to everyone who has read corresponding pages and chapters of Gulag Archipelago) with regards to Soviet POWs joining Germans. He claims this happened due to POWs simply believing German victory and wanting to be on the winning side [3] (actually, Vlasov units were sent to the front under the banner of Russian Liberation Army no sooner than 1944).

I bet "this happened" in first place due to POWs simply weren't particularly happy being starved to death in their camps. Very large proportion of RLA consisted of absolutely apolitical men. 195.98.64.69 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To solve the isssue, one might look Solzhenitsyn's quotations as support [4]. Well, here are some Solzhenitsyn's thoughts:

  • Who remembers the great flight of people from Northern Caucasus in January 1943 – and who can show a counterpart from the world history? The population, especially rural, massively going with the defeated enemy, the foreigners – in order not to remain under the victorious own – carts, carts, carts in the severe windy January frost! (Part V, Ch.1) (--- Hey Deng, how is this in accordance with your 'better be winner's pet than slave' thesis?)

May-be real reasons of Russian collaboration with the Germans originate from instances like this one:

  • There in Rostov, Aleksandr Petrovich M.-V., an engineer was arrested in one the first days of war, he died in the preliminary inquiry chamber, his wife shuddered for months, waiting when she would be arrested, -- and only after the German arrival could she go to sleep calmly: ‘’Now I can have a rest at last!’’ (Part V, Ch.1) Constanz - Talk 13:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And in the light of all that labelling the USSR residents who fought with the Germans as 'turncoats' -- isn't this biased? Constanz - Talk 14:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I havent forgot that you havent replied on my comment about Raw Material production. Also the part of most volunteers comeing from the baltic countries was made by me and that was incorrect and therfore I have removed it. Also when you word it up like this "Most of those who joined were Russian POWs. Most who joined hated communism and actually saw the Nazis as liberators from communism." It creates problems because early in the war some people did join because of that but they qucikly got disillusioned by what the axis did to the people.
Was 1944 (people from Baltic states joined) or 1945 (Russian Liberation Army) early in the war? It proves again that your knowledge is rather limited and you see evertything through your pro-communist glasses, so to say. Constanz - Talk 11:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the part you refer to hasent been in this article for more then a few houers before it was removed yes ALL is a bad word MOST is a better one. Also in the purposed article which is made by me you can see that it dosent at all mention any of those things. And dont call my editing bias I very simply want an accurate article and that shows both sides of an event. For example if one lists axis casulties on a specific day then one must also list Soviet casulties and so on. (Deng 16:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

And now you claim most of the male population was slaughtered or sent to slave labour and most of the women were raped (not all any more at least!)? Figures and facts pls, not obvious exaggeration and non-sense.

Stop draging up old things that I added to an old article and that exsisted for only a few miniutes before it got removed that part is not going to be in the article so stop draging it up. Look at the test page i made and see if it is there. I support the test page that I made if you are going to complain then complain against things that are on the test page and not some thing I added to an article and then got removed after a few minutes.(Deng 12:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

I repeat, Stalin's terror perished more people from the earth than the Nazi occupation did. Remember that it's calculated that over 10 million people died in the Holodomor alone. Constanz - Talk 11:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "calculated" mostly by people (and their descendants) who ducked the entire so-called Holodomor being citizens of Poland, Slovakia and Romania at that time... NOT Ukraine! ;-) Besides, "10 million people died" is exact number of people starved by Churchill in Bengal, as modern indian historians claim. ;-) 195.98.64.69 02:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And your idea of opportunistic POWs (not a proof of your pro-Soviet bias?) is simply a mistake, such as many of your other ideas. Constanz - Talk 16:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I did just look up

(Deng 18:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

I just copied the text from where I got the picture from and the picture itself and the picture will be removed soon enough. This posting of this comment is ofcurse an attempt by ksenon to attack me and my person. (Deng 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

No, it was just to accent your style, which fits perfectly. Anyway, let's wait for some comment. Ksenon 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
My style, lets talk about your style; no sources ever mentioned ever. Going around articles left and right deleteing information just because you feel like it and then ofcurse no reason or no sources what so ever. That is your style and ofcurse when you are confronted with something that proves that you are wrong well then you just ignore it like a few lines up where I showed that you did remove any mention about slave labour used by the axis.(Deng 08:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC))
Another perfect example that you do not wish to tell an accurate story is that one and ONLY of the sources you stated "Rudiger Overmans - Deutsche militarische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkreig" that same source says that 4.3 million germans died on the eastern front but ofcurse this fact you totally ignore. And this alone proves that you do not wish to make an accurate article just an article that maximize soviet losses and minimizes axis ones.(Deng 12:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC))


Comments: I think the main page is very well-written and found it to be an excellent overview. I certainly do not see any blatant bias in the text. However, the Overview section might be improved by mentioning the Russo-German alliance that existed up until the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. From a historical perspective, most European readers would automatically know this (and it is covered in "Background"), but the omission of this fact from the first section disrupts the perceived neutrality of the piece. Perhaps the sub-sentance "... began on 22 June 1941, when Germany invaded ..." could be amended to read "... began on 22 June 1941, when Germany abruptly broke their alliance with the Soviet Union and invaded ...". Sometimes very obvious facts are omitted by those who know the subject matter well, but the omission can be construed as bias where it might actually be an assumption of competance on the broader scope of the subject matter. Brevity is very desirable in an Overview, but many readers will only view the overview and skip the rest. I don't think the omission of German rapine is evidence of any pro-German bias; there is a link to the Holocaust, after all, which serves very well to explore in detail the Nazi regime's atrocities. Perhaps a seperate link to the details of the atrocities in Russia would serve to balance the text. The sentance "German and German-allied forces treated civilian populations with exceptional brutality, massacring villages and routinely killing civilian hostages." refers to "hostages" which is innacurate. Captured civilians were not hostages by definition. The sentance should be amended to read "... routinely killing civilians" or even "... routinely raping and killing civilians" if an effort were to be made to assuage the disgruntlement of parties which take offense at the omission of Axis rapine from the main text. The second section also contains several minor grammatical errors, most of which are minor and could be corrected by the liberal application of commas and the word "was". The sentance "The Eastern front resulted in such staggering losses and disregard for human life almost entirely on the ideological premise for the war." does not make sense. Probably a cut-and-paste error. I hope this helps, good work and best wishes to all.


Thank you for the comments. Strictly speaking, the Soviet-German agreement was a non-agression pact, not an alliance, and I think we need to be careful of our wording on that issue. No one labels the Franco-British-German agreement at Munich an 'alliance', but the logic would be similar.
I am not sure about the word 'hostages'. Broadly, I agree with the idea that all the atrocities should be in a separate article because the subject is so vast and contentious. So the question really may be 'what brief statement do we make on this subject?'. The Germans' typical tactics were to massacre entire villages, or take a small number of civilians and execute them as reprisals for partisan attacks. I have often seen the latter called 'hostages' although they do not quite meet the usual definition of that word. Maybe we should find another word to describe these reprisal killings.
I couldn't agree more on the comment "The sentance "The Eastern front resulted in such staggering losses and disregard for human life almost entirely on the ideological premise for the war." does not make sense. "
Thanks again for the comments. DMorpheus 15:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


The test page has ofcurse a very balanced statement about atrocities and also has correct numbers.(Deng 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC))
The word 'hostages' could be substituted with 'civilians', followed by mention of the mass rapings (i.e. sanctioned gangbanging) of German women. And let's not forget that one of the hallmarks of the EF were the almost continuously superior losses inflicted by a numericaly-inferior foe, so numbers should be independently verified. Ksenon 02:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
"Sanctioned gangbanging"? Perhaps by Stalin and his marshals themselves? Would you please give me links to any scanned signed orders or something? In fact these incidents always were considered crimes, and punished severely, not only "rapes", but even "normal" love affairs.
And let's not forget that "one of the hallmarks" of the Cold War were myths about "continuously superior losses inflicted by a numericaly-inferior foe", created by beaten german generals and the like. Nobody then tried to think, how come that "Ivan had 1:5 to 1:10 superiority in numbers" (according to these venerable authors) and suffered even greater losses, yet USSR had population of only two times German Reich population (and even worse - lost a lot of people due to fast enemy advance). 195.98.64.69 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is the only one that is neutral and has the correct nummbers

Just make sure the last edit was made by me. All numbers have real sources.

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed

(Deng 13:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Is label 'Soviet turncoats' neutral? And Deng, you've been complaining of me not answering on raw material production. I had doubts about it and still have, but I've had lots of more important things to do than running through libraries and finding statistics. So, as for me, let this statistics be, I do not have time for disputing it with facts.
But now, could you be so kind as to answer to any of my questions, which I asked in the Deng bias section?Constanz - Talk 15:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I did but you have missed it so re-read it and if you miss it again send me a message and I will make a much longer reply. Everyone has more imporant things to do but if you dont have hard facts and sources to back up those facts then dont post to say that the facts are wrong.(Deng 15:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

RfC follow-up

My post higher up on this page seems to have been overlooked. I strongly suggest creating a branching article for (something like) war crimes. I also suggest shifting the focus of that subject away from cross comparisons and toward dry factual descriptions of each subtopic. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons might help tone down the dialogue and get it on a more productive track. I'd like to thank all the editors here for taking on this very difficult subject. Regards, Durova 18:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. :-) I edited in a suggested main article into the proposed version here. I think it is a very good suggestion you made. Andreas 18:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that this proposal page could be made basis for the Eastern Front (WW2) article and the latter could then be unprotected. I've made some minor editions I found necessary. Constanz - Talk 11:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think those edits are fine, and I agree that the word 'turncoat' is not the best to use. The motivations for helping the Germans could be quite complex, and to generalise like that is problematic. Andreas 11:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
All we need is the campaign template and verification of the following: (Bagration article) The defeat of this force resulted in the death or capture of nearly 350,000 German troops. (Proposed version, Bagration section) The Germans lost approximately 670,000 dead, missing, wounded and sick, out of whom 160,000 were captured, as well 2,000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles. Also, the production comparisons could be moved to a sister article to avoid "cluttering". Ksenon 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


The nummbers are from the bagration article copied directly from that article, and no the numbers will not be moved. There is no need to move the numbers. The only reason why anyone would want to move the numbers as I see it, is if they not want people to be able to compare losses and gains. (Deng 12:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC))
I agree the Bagration numbers should be verified (in the Bagration article), since I have never seen German numbers of such exactness elsewhere, and I am just wondering what they cover. They do look ballpark correct though. Regarding the production numbers, I think unless someone really wants to get into it, they can as well stay in this article. Andreas 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unlock and Replace with Proposed Version?

Do we have a consensus that the current page should be unlocked, after being replaced with the proposed page? So far I believe I can count Deng, Constanz, and me in agreement with this proposal. Ksenon I am not sure about. Does anyone have an objection to this? Andreas 12:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you state succinctly below which version of the page you propose to implement? --Ghirla -трёп- 12:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This one with the edits as of today. I refer you to my proposal on how to move things forward from above. As an aside, this talk page is an unnavigable mess and should be archived. Andreas 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


RfC follow-up

My post higher up on this page seems to have been overlooked. I strongly suggest creating a branching article for (something like) war crimes. I also suggest shifting the focus of that subject away from cross comparisons and toward dry factual descriptions of each subtopic. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons might help tone down the dialogue and get it on a more productive track. I'd like to thank all the editors here for taking on this very difficult subject. Regards, Durova 18:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. :-) I edited in a suggested main article into the proposed version here. I think it is a very good suggestion you made. Andreas 18:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that this proposal page could be made basis for the Eastern Front (WW2) article and the latter could then be unprotected. I've made some minor editions I found necessary. Constanz - Talk 11:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think those edits are fine, and I agree that the word 'turncoat' is not the best to use. The motivations for helping the Germans could be quite complex, and to generalise like that is problematic. Andreas 11:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
All we need is the campaign template and verification of the following: (Bagration article) The defeat of this force resulted in the death or capture of nearly 350,000 German troops. (Proposed version, Bagration section) The Germans lost approximately 670,000 dead, missing, wounded and sick, out of whom 160,000 were captured, as well 2,000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles. Also, the production comparisons could be moved to a sister article to avoid "cluttering". Ksenon 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


The nummbers are from the bagration article copied directly from that article, and no the numbers will not be moved. There is no need to move the numbers. The only reason why anyone would want to move the numbers as I see it, is if they not want people to be able to compare losses and gains. (Deng 12:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC))
I agree the Bagration numbers should be verified (in the Bagration article), since I have never seen German numbers of such exactness elsewhere, and I am just wondering what they cover. They do look ballpark correct though. Regarding the production numbers, I think unless someone really wants to get into it, they can as well stay in this article. Andreas 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unlock and Replace with Proposed Version?

Do we have a consensus that the current page should be unlocked, after being replaced with the proposed page? So far I believe I can count Deng, Constanz, and me in agreement with this proposal. Ksenon I am not sure about. Does anyone have an objection to this? Andreas 12:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you state succinctly below which version of the page you propose to implement? --Ghirla -трёп- 12:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This one with the edits as of today. I refer you to my proposal on how to move things forward now in Archive 3. Andreas 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the page needs some work before it is put up as the replacement page. I don't have a problem with it forming the basis of the new page, but there are some inconsistencies and errors in it. It is also very German-centric. That is, most of the article is written with German intentions or German decisions foremost, and the Soviets are almost offstage in much of the writing. Some of the battle overviews conflict with the specific battle articles - this is especially true with the Kursk campaign summary, which differs sharply with the Kursk article.
After all the effort that has gone into this discussion I would hate to see this page go up without some edits to clean some of this up. I think we may be close to having consensus but not quite yet. DMorpheus 15:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
My thinking is that it maybe easier to replace the article and discuss it here, instead of not replacing it and discussing the proposed version here. At the moment we run the risk that new comments (like my first one) will be on this page here, which I believe to be far out of date. Hence my preference would be to move the proposed version here, and then edit and talk about it here. Far less confusing. That's just my thinking though, I like it neat. Andreas 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm alo inclined to think this way. then we'd have at least a working page one could edit. If it really would fail, then it could be protected again, but let us try unprotection. I am not going to make any major edits myself soon, though, as I'm busy right now. So it's more like up to those to decide, who have really been actively editing the page. --Constanz - Talk 15:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing that should never be forgoten is that the test page was made by ME and it is almost exactlly the same as when i proposed it several months ago the only real changes have been made be me. As I see it if you put it back well then Ksenon will just start with his pro german removal of everything that dosent praise the germans and remove everything that dosent demonize the soviets as last time, and it dont see how DMorpheus can now accept the very same page he rejected so many months ago. (Deng 18:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

On the verge of settling this dispute, you attack two other people. Again. If you re-read my post above, I have said that while I don't mind moving forward with this version as a basis, it has significant issues that need to be edited. I am not "accept"ing it; I think we should make some careful edits first before promoting it as the new page. For one thing, we might want to mention that the Red Army did things besides react to the Germans.
As to authorship, this isn't about anyone's ego. Wiki is a cooperative project. DMorpheus 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Object I believe "new version" contains extreme POV issues (like "Hitler-Stalin" pact - instead of "Soviet-German" as it is called in history documents of that time, "Russian and Soviet historiography" - then the article World War II should be labelled as "Western historiography" :) etc., etc.,etc.) While the current one has much less POV issues, as I believe. Hence, why should we do excessive work to fix POV in the "new version", keep this one! Cmapm 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Object. I see that the table of contents of both version are essentially the same, i.e., the structure is the same. Therefore it is pretty much reasonable to make changes sectionwise, rather than in one big replacement. The new version has no significant advantages and a number of new drawbacks. Particularly naive is the "The Clash of Ideologies" section. mikka (t) 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, user:Woohookitty seems to moved text by cot and paste to the current location, so the perhistory of the nnew verion is unclear. But from emotional comments in the history I see that the version is "owned" by SuperDeng. I see no reason to believe that one person did it better than the whole crowd before him and I see no nessessity to detract from the normal way of work: list objections in neat sections, one by one, and find a mutually-agreed text for each disputed piece. It is not the case that the whole article was a piece of garbage3 begging for rewrite. I don't even see an expert's touch, like is was with superb rewrites of user:172. mikka (t) 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Object. I didn't like those ugly tables full of question marks. Please move them elsewhere. Mikka is correct: small edits work the best. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Tables are unnecessary detail in a very general overview article. This is not a paper book to squeeze everyting into. Use hypertext. mikka (t) 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It does have significant diffrences trust me I made it I know. And DMorpheus i havent attacked anyone I just state the truth. You have critized my test page from the start and you supported an older version of the locked page one that is extremly diffrent from MY test page. Also you have called me pro soviet bias when I have added numbers that do not glorify the germans so you are not fooling anybody when you say you want a soviet perspective. All the posts you have made have never ever mentioned anything about a soviet perspective and you have done nothing but criticise me and my test page and you also have gone so far in blameing me for everything. Do you want me to show you the parts where you talk about my test page because I can do it. So there is no way that you are not going to do major changes togheter with ksenon to make the article a glorification of the germans. Just as ksenon removed the mention about slave labour by the axis so will you. And let us never forget that the only source ksenon has ever qouted that same soruce says that 4.3 million germans died and not 2.5 which you and him both support. So you are ofcurse going to make major SOURCE-LESS changes and a new edit war will break out. Therfore it is much better to stick to the original plan which is to get the page to a mediation request. And do not think for a second that I have forgoten all the protests against this page and none have ever been about kursk or lack of soviet perspective.(Deng 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

"It does have significant diffrences": List them one by one here, and we will talk. Also, please refrain from discussing editors, stick to discussing edits. Don't waste other people's time. If you spend much talk page in personal bickering, a high chance is that your important arguments will be simply overlooked. mikka (t) 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You have no clue what you are talking about check the archives and study and see what has been going on All edits have been disscused everything I have done has been made with soruces unlike all other edits mine are with sources that is why the page got locked the first time because I would give sources where as others wouldnt(Deng 21:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC))
Yes I have a clue. You want a vote, I want clean comparison data. I have no time to roam thru endless rants which may or may not related to your version. From what I've seen, your version is worse in a number of places than the old one. That's why I object. If you want to sway my opinion, show what became better. The "RTFM"-kind answer will not go. mikka (t) 04:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edits to the /Proposed page

The proposed page still needs a re-write.

1. The lead photo caption should be Rread "..during the Battle of Berlin..." not after. The seizure of the Reichstag was not the end of the battle, as is evident from the columns of smoke in the photograph.

2. Section 1.2 "the Clash of Ideologies" is mostly about nazi ideology and atrocities. Soviet ideology is barely mentioned. May I suggest this section be shortened, somewhat following Ksenon's suggestion of a few days ago, with a link to a new "atrocities" article? I believe that suggestion has been made by at least three people.

3. Section 2.1, 'The Hitler-Stalin Pact': This is a very POV way of introducing the subject. May I suggest we re-title this "The Diplomatic background"? That would include brief statements about international efforts to contain Germany in the 1930s, not just the Hitler-Stalin pact. The section should refer to a more detailed article and remain brief.

4. Section 2.2 "The Decision for War". Shouldn't a section on each side's preparations follow section 2.1? This section discusses neither German nor Soviet preparations, nor is it really about the decision for war. The reference to the Barbarossa article is a good idea.

5. Operations: All of these sections should be shortened, and should follow the contents of the more specific articles that are referenced. E.g., the Kursk summary here should be a summary of the Battle of Kursk article, with an emphasis on why it was important. Actual operations do not need detailed discussion in this article. Most of the operations described are German ones. Much of the content is inaccurate:

  • The huge battles in the Kiev Special Military District are ignored. There is merely a mention that the German Army Group South's progress was "rather slow". The reader is left wondering why.
  • Neither the T-34 nor the katyusha were "new" to combat in Dec 1941. Both were used in the opening days of the campaign. It's an odd place to mention them since they were not decisive in this battle.
  • The account of winter fighting repeats the old myth that the weather ended all mobility. There is a good discussion of this in the Barbarossa article. Why not skip most of the operational details here and refer to that article?
  • The Timoshenko offensive is linked (Second Battle of Kharkov) but not mentioned in the text. It should probably be linked in the 'Don, Volga, and Caucasus' section rather than in the 'Soviet Counteroffensive: Winter 1941' section. It is a major reason why the German drive on Stalingrad and the caucasus met so little resistance. It was also a factor in Soviet defensive planning for Kursk. These sorts of top-level strategic issues should go in the article; details about battles are less important.
  • The text inconsistently uses "Russia" when "USSR" or "Soviet Union" would be correct.
  • The text uses NPOV terms such as "German tactical flair", (german) "daring strike", (german) "leap across the Don", (german) "strategic decision" to retreat, as oppposed to being defeated by a Soviet unit, etc.
  • Very little content on Manstein's 'backhand stroke' in Feb/March 1943.
  • Vandalism in the Kursk section - the German offensive pincers were not planned to converge on "Tim".
  • The whole Kursk section is weak and disagrees with the Kursk article. Again - this is a good reason to leave operational details out of the main article. To pick one small example, the 5th Guards Tank Army had about 850 tanks on July 12, 1943, not 400 as claimed in the article. "Hitler took fright" ? Please. Anyway, it is more sensible, and easier on maintenance, if we simply refer to the Kursk article and not get into this sort of thing.
  • Grossdeutschland was Hitler's "favorite division" ? Really?
  • "All that was left for the Soviets to do was to launch an offensive to capture what was to become East Germany". The concept of an independent German Democratic Republic (East Germany) did not exist at the time, nor was that territory a Soviet objective. The objective was the destruction of the remainder of the Wehrmacht and the capture of Berlin. The term "East Germany", capitalized as if it were the name of a country, is used at least twice more. Boththe Soviets and western allies wanted to control their occupation zones, but that was a secondary consideration.
  • Soviet casualties for every battle are given, but German losses are rarely stated.

6. The photo caption for Lidiya Ruslandova is odd; the photo is obviously not on the doorsteps of the Reichstag.

  • Modify the caption but keep the photograph. We should illustrate how all the artists gave up their ordinary concerts to perform at the front and to boost the soldiers' morale. Perhaps replace this photo with a screenshot from a war-time Soviet movie? --Ghirla -трёп- 06:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

7. It is implied that Stalin set up the commissar system, when in fact the system was created by Trotsky during the civil war period.

8. Shoulderboards were introduced *for all ranks* early in 1943.

9. "Guards" designations began in late 1941, not late 1942. The Guards designations could be given to Brigades, Regiments, Corps, or even Armies, not simply to Divisions.

10. Voroshilov is not generally considered to be a competent member of the Stavka; far from it.

11."Politruks" are political officers, but are members of the military.

12. The "occupation and repression" section might best be moved to the separate atrocities article. It might be a good basis for that article.

13. The "industrial output" section is good, but should also refer to the Lend-lease article. US aluminum and fuel shipments (especially aviation fuel), for example, make a difference in Soviet industrial figures. Virtually all the high-octane aviation fuel used by the Red Air Force came from the USA.

Why is Japanese production in the tables?
Which self-propelled guns cost 2/3s of a tank?
How does western (occupied) Europe figure in German industrial potential? There were thousands of French trucks in German units, for example.
Sweden did not provide 2/3 of German iron ore.
Just my two cents.DMorpheus 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


All of this has been mentioned before check the archives and nothing is ksenons idea nothing at all it was mentioned by others long before him. Japanese production is mentioned because in the eastern front article someone added the battles in china where the soviets fought the japanese after the war in europe is over. Yes there were thousand of french trucks in german units what is your point?(Deng 23:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

My rather obvious point is that the proposed page has issues. Some are minor, like the photo captions. Some are huge. They should be addressed before promoting the article to replace the current one. I see there are a some objections to promoting it anyway. Please cease with the personal attacks.
Since the Eastern Front consists of the German-Soviet front, there is no point in including japanese production. Japan was not a strategic threat to the USSR by 1941. Likewise, since Italy's main effort was in the mediterranian, it is not logical to include all of their production as if it were available to be used on the Eastern Front.
The issue with the French trucks is that they are one minor, yet obvious example that you cannot assess German industrial potential without including some portion of the French economy, the Begian economy, the former Czech economy, etc. German units were full of equipment made outside of Germany, and obviously other strategic materials came from outside Germany. You seem fixated on Swedish iron ore, but what about Romanian oil, French trucks, Czech tanks, Swiss instruments, etc ?
If all of this has been mentioned before why was it not included in the article? In fact much of it has been mentioned before and much of it is being posted for the first time. There is no harm in proceeding carefully. DMorpheus 03:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned Romanian Oil and this proves that you have no intresst what so ever in makeing a correct article just a prove german one. You say alot but have done nothing except delete even more. So just drop it (Deng 11:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

"They should be addressed before promoting the article to replace the current one": If a text has huge problems, why talk about its promotion at all? Judging from the history of the proposed version, SuperDeng rejected the idea of cooperative step-by-step creation of the new version. Now that he is done with it, I say: put it all into the wastebasket and let people work together sectionwise. mikka (t) 04:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The issue with the French trucks" the real issue with french trucks that it is not our damn business to assess the German potential: our business is to report expert's assesses. mikka (t) 04:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, it turns out that the current locked version has its elements of bullshit as well. Surprisingly, it didn't change much since november. mikka (t) 04:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Section 2.2 "The Decision for War". Shouldn't a section on each side's preparations follow section 2.1? This section discusses neither German nor Soviet preparations, nor is it really about the decision for war. The reference to the Barbarossa article is a good idea. -- Very much agreed. As many new sources are accessible now, different soviet plans should be mentioned. That's why I'm myself about to create an article on Soviet assault plans 1941 (draft [6]). At least current proposed version does not repeat the old Soviet defence myths, which have now been severy criticised. I added link to Operation Barbarossa, just as it has much information on the issue (which the proposal does not have). --Constanz - Talk 09:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Colour me unconvinced. I also recommend (since we are into very speculative territory here) to then address the claims made by Fugate/Dvoretsky on Soviet pre-war planning and how that influenced placement. In any case you would need to discuss Glantz' 'Stumbling Colossus'. At the moment as far as I can see it from your draft the argument rests on IHR (who I would not trust if they told me the time), Suvorov (who has been quite thoroughly discredited, in my view), and Meltyukov (who I have not read, so can not comment). That's not a lot for a complete rewrite of history. Then you would need to say a word or two on whether (if you can show a convincing case for the Soviet assault) this was known or suspected by the Germans when they made their decision, or whether these were completely independent. Andreas 09:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I only suggest such theory be mentioned. And I rest almost wholly on Mikhail Meltyukhov's Stalin's Missed Chance. It's only rough notes there. Pls be more careful, claims do not rest on IHR. As for German thinking etc, you might see the article on the book mentioned above. --Constanz - Talk 09:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Mikka posted: Judging from the history of the proposed version, SuperDeng rejected the idea of cooperative step-by-step creation of the new version. Now that he is done with it, I say: put it all into the wastebasket and let people work together sectionwise. That is precisely the problem here. No matter what edits anyone else suggests it is unlikely to find any cooperation from Deng. The record shows this. Thus the page lock. DMorpheus 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Your personal attacks are ofcurse all wrong, It is you who has prevented any cooperation and the history proves it. (Deng 14:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC))


Just because your only wish is to minimize german casulties by stateing 2.5 million instead of the real 4.3 million you ofcurse say that I am not willing to cooperate when in truth it is only you who wants to glorify the germans and twist history.(Deng 14:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC))


That is why the link was made by someone that didnt go anywhere because people wanted to create an article about all crimes on the eastern front, and you ofcurse keep removieng this link (Deng 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Version Comparison

OK It seems that the proponent SuperDeng genuinely does not understand what I meant when I said to list the changes. Let me show by an example. If you compare complete versions, with tthe notable exception of the significantly rewritten intro, you may make little sense what exactly was affected, since some pieces are shifted with respect to each other; they appers identical, but you may never be sure by eye.

Now, let us compare section by section.

  1. . Intro
    Major Rewrite
  2. Overview
    Major Rewrite
  3. 2 Background
    Major Rewrite
  4. 3 Operations
  5. * 3.1 Invasion: Summer 1941
    Small difference
  6. * 3.2 Moscow and Rostov: Autumn 1941
    No change
  7. * 3.3 Soviet counter-offensive: Winter 1941
    No change
  8. * 3.4 Don, Volga, and Caucasus: Summer 1942
    No change
  9. * 3.5 Stalingrad: Winter 1942
    Minor change
  10. * 3.6 Kursk: Summer 1943
    No change
  11. * 3.7 Eastern Front in Fall and Winter 1943
    No change
  12. * 3.8 Eastern Front in Summer 1944
  13. * 3.9 Eastern Europe: January–March 1945
  14. * 3.10 End of War: April–May 1945
  15. 4 Leadership
  16. 5 Occupation and repression
  17. 6 Industrial output
  18. 7 Casualties
  19. 8 See also
  20. 9 References
  21. 10 External links

Now it is easily seen that user:DMorpheus wasted lots of his time explaining that "Operations" section is bad. It is bad yes, but at this point the issue is irrelevant to the question at hand: which version to use, simply because in the part "Operations" they are identical. And morpheus will be easily able to fix the problems he pointed in normal editing way, without much talk.

Now you finish what I started: namely, the description of changes, and concentrate on the proposed changes, rather than on the whole bad article. You must make a choice: one version or another quickly, and then unlock, and proceed with further improvement. mikka (t) 05:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


The major diffrence Is ofcurse the mention that 4.3 million Germans died and not 2.5 million, also the Bagration now fits with the article operation bagration before it hade way to low german casulties and much higher soviet ones. Also Industrial production is diffrent and all graphs are now black, grey and white so that color blind people can read them to. The Industrial production also now mentions that the soviets lost production capacity and the germans gained it by takeing over the lost land. Raw material production was lost by the Soviets and gained by the axis. The introduction is also very diffrent. And the Casulties section is also diffrent. And Mikkalail stop deleting stuff in the test page you keep on removeing a part that was agreed upon earlier and it is explained why it should be there. I am reopening the archives becuause it is clear that you need to read more about what has been said before. (Deng 11:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

  • You are not reading what I wrote. Please finish the comparison table I started for you. And Deng, you don't own the page and I don't care that you agreed for obvious nonsense. I don't need archives, I know how to find them, thank you. I need a full systematic comparison of your changes. mikka (t) 21:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Ok you stoped on number 12

12 Operation Bagration facts in the article now fits with the Operation Bagration article before the numbers did not match what was said in the article

13-16 No change

17 It mentions slave labour it also has the numbers of other axis members production of raw materials and tank and Sp numbers to. Also many rewrites have been made to add more numbers. The locked version does have raw material production but the other propsed version which I think is no longer proposed does not have this. Also there is mention that the Soviets lost industry and raw material sources which the axis gained. And I also removed all the colors because some one said that color blind people might find it hard to read.

18 Major changes, almost all numbers have been changed most notebly the german ones the 2.5 million is not correct and that is explained in Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1


19+ No edits

These are the changes made by me which you have not mentioned before other people have made edits so what I say here might not be 100% exact but since most edits were made by me I can say that this is almost a complete comparison.

Also I know Idont own the page but the section you keep on deleting that has been placed thaere because people wanted to creat a warcrime article that would be linked from the eastern front page that is why the link was added even before the article has been made. (Deng 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

The redlink is misplaced, wrong and misspelled title. Nothing against the article. There is a big Category:World War II crimes to start from. But it will be more meaningful to have geographical articles, like World War II atrocities in Poland, because war crimes happened not only on the front line, but also in occupied territories far behind front. mikka (t) 01:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

== We need to get the numbers right ==

I have a dilemma with Soviet losses. The source on the casualties page now is Vadim Erlikman because he is the only one who makes a bit of sense, but still he is using Sov era data to allocate the losses. Soviet era sources are not known for reliability.
Here are the facts:
1- The Russian Academy of Science published a report in 1993 that gave data on the demographic impact of the war on the USSR. The losses were 26.6 million including 17 million draft aged males.
2-The official Russian military report published in 1993 listed 6.9 million confirmed dead plus 1.8 million POW and MIA deaths combined. They claim 4.5 million POW & MIA less 2.7 liberated in 1945.
3-The Germans claimed to have taken 5.7 million POW not counting Sov MIA.
4-Most western historians( I could make a list) give Sov POW losses as 3 million+. Not counting in MIA
5-An independent Russian researcher Vadim Erlikman published in 2004 a handbook of statistics on war casualties(with decent footnotes) that claimed the USSR military losses were 10.6 million in the war including 6.9 million Killed, 700,000 MIA, 2.6 million POW and 400,000 partisans and milita. The number of POW and MIA is more credible than 1.8 million so I posted Erlikman's data for the USSR. Erlikman is not an apologist for the communist system or the Russian government. He listed an estimated 1.7 million dead due to Soviet repression in addition to war losses of 26.5 million
6-Back to the 2.7 million POWs and "Vlasovites" that were sent back to the USSR in 1945. I wonder how many are included in the total of 17 million draft aged males lost in the war. They were marched off to the Gulag. We just do not know their fate.
7-Please go to my talk page --Woogie10w 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)to see a posting I copied from the Dupuy Forum on Soviet Casualties. Today there is a high level Russian military official( now he is head of the military archives) who claims there is a card file in Russia with the names of 13.8 million Soviet war dead.
I really need the help of people in Wikipedia who may have knowledge on this topic. We need to get the numbers right--Woogie10w 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly....

...Soviet crimes are not mentioned, but German are.


Yes they are read under "The Clash of Ideologies" , "Leadership", "Occupation and repression" and "Casualties"


Still it looks one sided with winners mentality, which shouldnt be used in an encylopedia. The comparison of the upper box only mentions soviet civilian losses and adds holocaust victims. I don´t know, why holocaust victims are added. Imho thats part of the holocaust article, this article should handle the military aspects of the eastern front and maybe the warcrimes of the soldiers and civilians of both sides while a lot of jews were also killed or even beaten to death by nationalistic civilians of the occupied countries. On the other hand the eastern war (1941-1945) waged at the latest since the end of 44 only in germany and axis states like hungary and so on. Its not like the russians acted more humane then the german soldiers so i really wonder, why there are only soviet cilvian casualities stated. A person, who has no idea of the eastern front or WW2 might became a one sided impression, looking at that box and i don´t think, that this is what we want to archieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.112.253 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Production figures in 1944

"According to calculations of John Erickson, the Soviet Union in 1944 manufactured 29,000 tanks and assault guns, 40,300 aircraft, 122,500 artillery pieces and mortars, and 184 million shells, mines and aircraft delivered bombs (J. Erickson 1975-83, 'Stalin's war with Germany' Vol. II 405) The quality as well as the quantity must be taken into account, for the figures include 2,000 of the new IS-2 Stalin tanks, more than 11,000 T-34 upgunned to 85 mm (T34/85s), and over 3,000 new models of 100-mm, 122-mm and 152-mm assault guns mounted on tank chassis."

Andries 06:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


You want to add the information or what, why did you make this post? The numbers you give are the same as in the test page except that the test page has exact numbers and you have round numbers. But if you want to add more information it is fine with me.

(Deng 13:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

overview of progress

what's the current situation on fixing the mess and reconstruction of the article?


It is in the works (Deng 23:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

i would also like to add that 2/3 of the eastern front ww2 discussion page are all concerned with the reconstruction. holy moley.


Some things I want to add

They come from here

The articel starts here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/soviet_german_war_01.shtml

But the things I want to add starts from here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/soviet_german_war_03.shtml

The reasons I want to add them are simple

1 It was writtem By Prof Richard Overy 2 If it is good enough for the BBC it is good enough for me

These are the things I want to add

The idea that the USSR had limitless manpower, despite its heavy losses, is inadequate as an answer. Germany and her allies also possessed a large population, and added to it the peoples of the captured Soviet areas - men and women who were forced to work for the German army or were shipped back to work in the Reich. Soviet armies were always desperately short of men.

Above all, Soviet tactics in 1941-2 were extremely wasteful of manpower. If the Red Army had continued to fight the same way, it would simply have sustained escalating losses for little gain.

Nor did the USSR enjoy an advantage in economic resources. After the German attack, Soviet steel production fell to eight million tons in 1942, while German production was 28 million tons. In the same year, Soviet coal output was 75 million tons, while German output was 317 million. The USSR nevertheless out-produced Germany in the quantity (though seldom in the quality) of most major weapons, from this much smaller industrial base.

The impressive production of weapons was achieved by turning the whole of the remaining Soviet area into what Stalin called 'a single armed camp', focusing all efforts on military production and extorting maximum labour from a workforce whose only guarantee of food was to turn up at the factory and work the arduous 12-hour shifts. Without Lend-Lease aid, however, from the United States and Britain, both of whom supplied a high proportion of food and raw materials for the Soviet war effort, the high output of weapons would still not have been possible.

The chief explanation lies not in resources, which Germany was more generously supplied with than the Soviet Union, during the two central years of the war before American and British economic power was fully exerted. It lies instead in the remarkable reform of the Red Army and the Russian air force, undertaken slowly in 1942.

Every area of Soviet military life was examined and changes introduced. The army established the equivalent of the heavily armoured German Panzer divisions, and tank units were better organised - thanks to the introduction of radios. Soviet army tactics and intelligence-gathering were also overhauled.

Camouflage, surprise and misinformation were brilliantly exploited to keep the German army in the dark about major Soviet intentions. The air force was subjected to effective central control and improved communications, so that it could support the Soviet army in the same way as the Luftwaffe backed up German forces.

The harsh treatment of the Soviet population in those areas of Russia occupied by Germany made it easier for the Stalinist regime to mobilise support elsewhere in Russia for the war effort. Stalin relaxed the repression of the Church so that it could be used to mobilise enthusiasm, while propaganda played on the theme of past Russian glories against European invaders, rather than on Communist successes.

An exceptional burden was borne by Soviet women. By 1945 over half the workforce was female, and on the land, more than four-fifths. Women fought in their thousands in the Soviet armed forces as pilots, sharpshooters, even tank commanders. Many women joined the partisan movement operating behind the German lines - and by 1943 there were an estimated 300,000 of them. They constantly harried German troops, and were themselves the victim of harsh punitive expeditions, which led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent villagers along with the partisan bands.

The war in the east was fought with a particular ferocity. The so-called 'barbarisation of warfare' has a number of explanations. Conditions were harsh for both sides, and losses were high. German forces entered the USSR with instructions from Hitler's headquarters to use the most brutal methods to keep control, and to murder Communist commissars and Jews in the service of the Soviet state.

By the autumn of 1941 these instructions had expanded to include all suspected partisans and other categories of Jew. In 1942 the remaining Jewish population was rounded up and killed on the spot or sent to extermination camps. The mass-murder of the Jews illustrates the importance of ideology in the conflict. Both sides fought in effect a civil war - the Soviets against imperialist invaders, the Germans against Jewish Bolshevism. The nature of the dictatorships determined the savage character of the eastern conflict.

Soviet victory came at a high price, but a combination of total-war mobilisation, better fighting methods and high operational skills defeated a German army that in 1944 was a formidable, heavily armed and modern fighting force. Soviet resistance made possible a successful Allied invasion of France, and ensured the final Allied victory over Germany. The Soviet state was transformed in the process into a superpower, and Communism, close to extinction in the autumn of 1941, came to dominate the whole Eurasian area, from East Germany to North Korea.


I know it is alot and Yes it will be re-written so that It dosent offend the copyright.

So what does everyone think, and please say what specific part you dont like and why, and remember the BBC arent some yahoos that put anything on their page.(Deng 14:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

Move along Deng

It is very frustrating to see that someone can hijack a page like this. Deng, you have driven so many people to the point of frustration, and for what? You are preventing a meaningful dialogue and limiting contributions from other authors. If you want to continue your rant, why not just get a blog? It would be a much better forum for you.--Auhlman 00:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Rant, Show me the rant also show me how I have hijakced this page, all I have done Is give facts real ones based on real soruces. So either stop your personal attacks or tell me where I have been wrong. Because of your offensive language and lack of specific issues and their sources I have strong feeling that this is a troll, but anyway...(Deng 11:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC))
After reading this discussion page and looking at the edit history, I agree with what Auhlman is saying. IMO, I think the editor in question should back off for awhile, cool off, and allow this article to move forward in a productive manner before rejoining the effort at a later time. Cla68 02:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Expert Opinion

This page contains numerous errors, employs false assumptions, and abounds with unfounded opinions. There is a distressing paucity of sources, and on the rare occassions that genuine citations appear, they are generally of poor quality. To make matters worse, the entire page is written at the academic level of the average 12-14 year old child. It is a travesty.

My recommendation is to delete the entire page, and start over again under the direction of a reasonably well-educated content expert.

Best Regards, Philippsbourg

I would consider vandalising another user's discussion page five times also a job of a 12 to 13 year old. [7] Regards, --Constanz - Talk 05:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the test page? (Deng 11:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

1200 Hours, 1 April, 2006

Sadly, yes I have "looked at" the test page. [personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 22:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)]

Best Regards, Philippsbourg


First of all this is the test page Proposed Version

Everything has a source or a refrense what specific part do you dissagree with

And Why did you post this at the start of talk page and not at the bottom like everyone does in wiki.

And if you are calling me 12-14 lets look at what you have done

1 you posted at the top of the page 2 you dont even know how to sign the page 3 I bet that you cant find any real sources that shows any of the numbers are wrong. You just want to complain.

(Deng 19:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

1220 Hours 1 April, 2006

[personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 22:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)]

Philippsbourg


Do you have some specific comments on specific parts or do you just want to complain?

(Deng 19:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

[personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 22:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)] --24.64.223.203 22:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Stop this

This article is disappointing as are the comments on this page. Let's an expert we all can agree on rewrite the topic fully. Since there always will be disagreements and controversial statements on any topic remotely related to nazism and communism, we should consider putting the conflicting views on separate topics, ie., German view, Soviet view, etc. view. --209.23.214.244 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


And where would we get this expert and what prevents someone from just changeing the whole thing? We need to work with what we got and try and do the best we can from what we got (Deng 04:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Well-made point. Reading the comments, it seems that there is a broad understanding of the general outline and what to do with that outline. Reverting makes sense. --209.23.214.244

I made a request to get the article unlocked

And it has gotten unlocked and I also have added the proposed version. Now if anyone wants to change anything lets first talk about everything here first and then change after we have talked. (Deng 11:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Deng, just so everyone is aware, here is what you posted in your unprotect request:

Unprotect the page and replace it with this test version Proposed Version that most have agreed upon

As long as people dont remove the fact that jews and others were used as slave labour by the nazies, that the SU lost alof of its industry and raw material sources which the axis gained or monkey with the numbers without stateing any refrences there should be no problem (Deng 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC))''

Reviewing the comments in this discussion page, it is evident that the proposed version is not one that "most have agreed upon". Did anyone count votes? DMorpheus 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


It is agreed upon by me, Ghirla, mikka, Constanz and Andreas and others (Deng 14:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Did I mis-understand the March 14th objections of both mikka and Ghirla to this version? Or were they objecting to some other version? DMorpheus 14:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You always misunderstand alot, the simplest way is to ask them on their talk page, do you X approve of this version of the eastern front, and by the way what is the alternative the version you supported which says 2.5 million germans died when in fact 4.3 million died and that is proven by the only sources ever given by ksenon (Deng 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

  • hi firs timem posting here, just chimed in to say that ...2.5 mil lost germans?! I'm German and that seems way too low honestly. 4.5 at least seems realistic.--67.118.134.194 08:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes we know we even have a reference that gives 4.3 million german soldiers died by soviet hands. The refrences is Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1 and if you read the article and scroll down, it is almost at the bottom, you will see the numbers and the refrences. If you are german you will be able to read the books which gives the numbers. (Deng 10:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

Kursk edits

As predicted, the article is being edited at a high rate again. I removed the following content:

The Battle of Kursk represented a scaled-up version of the battles of World War I — infantry advancing under machine gun fire, and tanks advancing on batteries of anti-tank guns. Much of the German equipment was new and untested, with undertrained crews. The new tank hunter units, though sporting a highly effective 88 cannon, had no hull mounted machine gun to protect against infantry, and were quickly targeted by the Soviet anti tank guns, which were positioned in hemispherical concave bulges, forming semicircles of high velocity crossfire. Moreover, these positions were protected by small two-man foxholes armed with limpet tank mines, machine gun nests, and mortar fire, ensuring than the Wehrmacht infantry could not effectively defend the tanks.

There is no WW1 battle that resembles Kursk in any significant way. The paragraph is both inaccurate and, more to the point, unnecessary. There is a very good-quality separate article on Kursk. This is an overview article. No WW1 battle involved massed close-air support, mechanized infantry, remote-control mine-clearing vehicles, mobile mine-laying units, massed antitank guns, self-propelled artillery, on-call artillery fires, multiple rocket launchers, or mobile mechanized reserves. Most of the German equipment was not new; some of it was, but in an overview article such as this it is hardly worth mentioning, particularly since none of it was of much importance in the battle. Deng, please recognize that many contributors make for a good wikipedia article. I am asking you to stop reverting every edit you don't like, and give others a chance. DMorpheus 14:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I also reverted this edit out, essentially for the same reasons, and the lack of serious sourcing.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Well then just remove the part about ww1, I will remove thar part about ww1 if that is the only problem (Deng 03:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC))
OK, can you please explain why or indeed how Soviet soldiers used naval limpet mines? That's part of what I have been trying to remove, but you keep putting back. DMorpheus 15:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


First you can explain why you remove much much much more then that you remove many times more then just that specific line. So explain why you say you only remove one line when in reallity you remove many many many more, also the first reason you gave for deleting was the refrence about ww1 which has been removed you didnt say you deleted it because of the mines you said you deleted it because of the ww1 refrence, and now that the ww1 refrences has been removed you start talking about mines. But the main things is that you not only delte those parts you delte everything they have ever touched (Deng 06:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

This is ridiculous

I've been trying to stay out of this mess, but I was told of the unprotection. Now I'm following the edits and I'm more than appalled by the behavior here. I put a request for comment up in hope that neutral voices will join the debate and help out. PLEASE stop referring to legitimate edits as "vandalism". Vandalism does not apply here. The people removing or adding material are doing it out of good faith, not to vandalize the article. I put a request up that the article be reprotected since it's obvious that you all haven't learned a damn thing in the 2 1/2 months of protection. I've never seen an article protected for 2 1/2 months where neither side really made any overtures to compromise. It's disgraceful. And don't try to drag me back into this please. This is all I'm saying on this matter. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC input

I would have to say that this is an argument with no finite solution. There is no agreement on the figures; never has been, and likely never will be. The Sovs at various times under- and over-reported casualties to suit political needs, and also often just plain didn't really know (fog of war and all that - contrary to some opinion, the Soviet bureaucracy was not really all that efficient). Thus any source that cites a specific figure as gospel is simply not credible. My recommendation would be to present a range, and also to explain the range. To say "Soviet casualties where x" or even "Soviet casualties where about y" is not really credible; the best option is "Soviet casualties have variously been estimated between x and y million". Bridesmill 22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


You are ofcurse wrong the number of 10.6 million is very creditable and what you think or believe is irrelevant, that number has been sourced and has also been sourced and put into ww2 casulties list. This belief that the Soviets were all a bunch of inferior people is all nazi and cold war propaganda. And it cost the nazies their reich. The nazies knew that the Soviets were not capable of fighting and wageing war just as you know that the Soviets were unable to calculate their military losses. (Deng 03:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC))


To state that the number X is very credible and comes from a reliable souce is to redefine 'credible' and imply that a lot of otherwise reliable sources are no longer reliable. I have seen different otherwise credible sources quoting different numbers, sometimes the same sources quoting ranges as that's all that is available. I don't have any close to hand, unfortunately, but i'm sure i could find some if you really want me to. -- Lordandmaker 15:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe the 10.6m is based on the research done by Krivosheev (check on Amazon) using the Soviet archives after these were opened in the early 1990s. While it is entirely possible that there are newer studies criticising Krivosheev that I am not aware of (although I know that there are still some issues with the numbers, in particular relating to 1941), anything that came before him is by definition outdated (hence, no longer credible), because it did not use the same primary source material. Krivosheev's work was ground-breaking. At least that is my understanding. Andreas 08:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
'Very credible' based on what? Have you compared this 10.6 mill to some amazing credible primary source material which nobody else has ever seen? This has nothing to do with what I think or believe, and everything to do with many years of studying the Soviet Onion, reading both German, Russian, and western primary & later sources. Nowhere did I state the Soviets where inferior - I stated the Soviet system was a mess, particularly in WW II. Nothing personal against them; they had their backs to the wall and *accurate* bodycounts simply where neither practicable nor politically what was required at the time. If they had the time and inclination, sure they could have done it. But they didn't. Now for us to come back after the fact and simply believe one figure over another when during the fact they weren't sure is total hubris, presumptuousness, and bordering on academic dishonesty. Bridesmill 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a bit of confusion here - I have no reason to assume that the Red Army had more trouble counting its casualties than any other army, post December 1941. Anything before that is probably quite questionable, but to just state that they could not handle their paperwork in normal combat operations throughout World War II absolutely defies belief. If you seriously want to argue that, I would like to see some sources, other than 'based on all the reading I have done', which is generally not acceptable in academia either. An army that can not get a handle on its loss reporting will very soon cease to work, it is fundamental to get this stuff right. The Red Army had a proper staff system, just like everybody else, and just like every other army in history loved paperwork. For a bottom-up perspective, I recommend Moniushko's memoirs 'From Leningrad to Hungary'. He was in the replacement system three times, and it is very illuminating to read his recollections of how (and how well) the administration worked. You do not seem to have something better to offer than Krivosheev's 10.6m, and I would suggest that your line of argument at present is too weak to dismiss his research. Andreas 08:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Your whole approach to this controversy seems to be off-the-mark. I admit that I don't know much about this area but, on general principle, if there is more than plausible view of what the figures are, then document the controversy. Don't try to arrive at a single set of figures. Put forth all the figures that are available in the sources and document the nature of any credibility problems. It is not our job to come up with the "right" answer. It is our job to document what answers are available in credible sources and document what criticisms are made by credible sources. It is reasonable to dismiss some sources as being completely lacking in credibility or to document that some sources seem to be more credible than others. However, the ideal is to adopt a Neutral Point of View (NPOV).
To avoid violating [WP:OR], you need to source even your criticisms of the sources. You shouldn't say "X's numbers are not credible because he's a Soviet bureaucrat". You should say "Y believes X lacks credibility because he's a Soviet bureacrat." Of course, this is an ideal. If you can't find a credible source who criticizes X's numbers, then at least say "some scholars criticize X's numbers" and leave the source attribution for someone else to insert. But try to be sure that there really are scholars out there who criticize X's numbers. Make sure it's not your own personal opinion. That's OR.
Good luck.
Richard 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Yhe numbers have been sourced, so stop saying they are wrong without any refrence, and it is the Soviet Union not Onion, get the refrence read the refrence and you will see that the number 10.6 is very correct (Deng 06:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC))


Also Krivosheev's numbers are the official ones of 8,668,400 and the 10,6 is a better rework of the official numbers (Deng 09:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC))
I'm not saying Krivosheev is wrong. The problem is nobody can prove him right either. Dupuy, Overy, are two very credible english-language authors off the top of my head who are already cited here & in related articles who make that argument better than I can. Read any year's worth of Voenno-Istoricheskij Zhurnal & the same debate in Russian circles becomes quite clear. Soviet Onion reference a bit of an inside joke amongst Sovietologists (play on Churchill's remark), sorry if you weren't amused. Bridesmill 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
That's an argument I can live with (although I doubt that Dupuy has contributed anything to the debate in the last ten years). Then it simply becomes a problem to put the appropriate riders on the figures - which should not be too difficult. Andreas 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Films etc.

Would it be possible to have a small section or list of cultural references, film depictions etc? I can only think of two films set on the Eastern Front off the top of my head, Cross of Iron and Enemy at the Gates. Any others? I am trying to find similar films for personal reasons, but I think such a section could benefit the article. Thanks, heqs 16:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Enemy at the Gates is utter crap as a film, but rather good as an example of cold war era myths and prejudices. I recommend it alongside reading Zaytsev's own memoirs for a portion of good laughs. :-D 195.98.64.69 03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen much quality from the west, largely due I think to the atitude which existed, & poss the difficulty Hollywood would have had during the cold war of portraying 'either' the Germans or the Sovs in an acceptable light. There is however some *brilliant* Soviet work (and I'm not a fan of SocRealism). Unfortunately none of the names are in my frontal lobe - will poke around & see what I can dig out of the basement for refs.Bridesmill 16:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the novel 'Star' was made into a decent movie - at least that's what my friends keep telling me. :-) Andreas 16:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a few more: A Soviet film that is widely available in the west called (in English) "Ballad of a Soldier" is outstanding. IIRC it was made in the Krushchev era. It concerns a single soldier, a brief bit of combat, then his journey to see his mother when he gets a short leave from the front. It's a great slice-of-life type movie. I have only seen it in Russian with subtitles. There is also (English title again) "My Name is Ivan", which tells the tragic story of a small boy at the front. Also very, very good; Russian only w/ subtitles. Finally there is the German film "Stalingrad" which is quite good; a great indictment of the moral spinelessness of the German officer corps on one level, and a good combat film also. The setting is a group of German Pioneers (assault engineers) who are sent in to the city and who then go through the whole siege. DMorpheus 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I also found this top 10 list which has some of those. Also the recent 'Last Train' [8] and 'Cuckoo' [9]

Opening Quote

User "Oberiko" deleted my posting (a quote) about Eastern Europe in WWII being one of the most terrible places in history. Did I infringe Wikipedia policies in inserting a quote and its reference? If not, please let me know what is wrong with adding something succinct that brings the reality and horror of war to us all? Or does "Oberiko" consider the Eastern Front to have been a picnic? Patrick

Oberiko is mad. He like to vandalize all battlrboxes with "Pyrrhic Victory" for the combatant side he hates without having the numbers. He wanted to label "Operation Goodwood" as an "Axis Pyrrhic Tactical Victory" ,when casualties are unkown for that opeartion. And the name itself sounds weird.

Nominate to Featured Article Status

Does anyone want to nominate this to FA Status?

Not really, because that would mean that my changes to the article were correct and well we cant have that now can we. (Deng 12:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC))

Polish Forces

The article states Polish forces joined in the fighting in January 1945. In fact Polish LWP forces were in combat as early as 1943. DMorpheus 17:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How many? And for whom did they fight? (Deng 20:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC))
About a division, and they fought for the Red Army. By 1945 there were two Polish all arms armies. Andreas 09:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ruslanova image legend fixed

There mentioning of the Reichstag removed from the image legend - it's clearly a rural area.[[[User:Serg3d2|Serg3d2]] 15:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)]

Bulgaria and Croatia?

I have removed the reference to Bulgaria, which did not offer active support to the German war in Russia. I think the inclusion of Croatia as one of the belligerant powers is also wrong, though I am not completely sure about this. White Guard 23:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware (see, for example, Mawdsley, "Thunder in the East"), Bulgaria declared war on Britain and France (!), but not on the USSR. It would also be very unlikely; Bulgaria was - and remains - extremely Russophile, due to the many cultural and religious ties, and the assistance which Russia provided to free Bulgaria from Turkish domination. I have also read that Bulgaria actually applied after WWII to become the 16th Soviet Republic, but was refused. The city of Varna was also renamed "Stalin" in the early post-was period. 78.48.0.223 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Axis-Soviet War

Is it not a bit odd that the campaignbox 'Axis-Soviet War' leads to the Eastern Front. Axis-Soviet war is not a commonly used phrase in English, which is presumably why it leads here and not to a page of the same name. Should the campaignbox name not be changed to reflect this? Cripipper 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. We need to favour English usage in English language Wiki, but note alternative usages, where valid.Folks at 137 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign units

I haven't researched, perhaps someone else knows: I thought SS (?) units were recruited from occupied and other territories. The Spanish Blue Division is mentioned (but not its contribution at Leningrad), but no ref to any others. Anyone help? Folks at 137 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. Just to clarify, (and not that you are saying this) the Spanish division was not a part of the Waffen-SS. It fought as a foreign 'volunteer' formation. The Waffen-SS recruited much of a division (the 5th) in Scandinavia, plus smaller units from France, Belgium (the Rexist party supplied a Brigade-sized unit), and many units from the Balkans. In addition, police schuma battalions were raised in Latvia and elsewhere. DMorpheus 12:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Status

So what's the status of this sorrow page now? I didn't see anything happening after the page was unprotected and sadly enough, none of DMorpheus's suggestions were implemented. Is anyone working on it? Shouldn't we start finally doing it now?

(Ilvar 10:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

Great idea. As for me, I saw no point in working on this article for a few months because of the constant edit wars. Some of those responsible have been blocked for long periods, so it is possible the article could be improved now. DMorpheus 18:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Reading the old comments, I got a feeling you had some sort of trimmed-down and more NPOV-compliant draft version of the page that could be used as a starting point, didn't you? We could just cross our fingers and go from there - I don't think that minor edits can fix what we have now...

(Ilvar 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

Raising the flag over the Reichstag

Some sources like http://www.pobeda-60.ru/main.php?trid=6007 and http://www.nasha.lv/article.php?id=555163&date=19-5-2005 claim Yegorov and Kantaria to be the official Soviet version (but most likely they were not the first). According to sites, it was done by Abdulkhakim Ismailov, Aleksey Kovalyov and Leonid Goryachyov, though I couldn't find the third person on photo :) Thoughts? --Brand спойт 15:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The source I used for the names was Max Hastings 'Amageddon'. I too have seen a third soldier in some depictions of the event though I confess I can't recall where. He is shown standing further back, watching the two flag-raisers and holding a PPSh. DMorpheus 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are using Max Hastings as a source? You can't be serious. You really should explore some of the other works on the subject. 25 October 2006 1100 Hours.

A third person could be visible here. --Brand спойт 17:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Casualties comparison

Should there perhaps be something like on the main WW2 page in the infobox at the top - a general list of all military casualties suffered on both sides during the eastern front? It would be interesting to mention what percentage of German casualties and divisions were lost on the Eastern Front, as this information doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else on wikipedia.

Since most Western schools teach that the Western front was by far the most important, I think we should do our small part to correct misconceptions. NOTE as of Nov. 5: The graph on the right was not made by me, but by the user below Esn 01:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea. Drop a line e.g. to Kirill Lokshin to coordinate the opinion. --Brand спойт 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I've recently made this. Comments are welcome.

--Brand спойт 17:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Front
Part of World War II

Soviet soldiers raising the flag of the Soviet Union over the Reichstag after the final battle of Berlin, April 30, 1945
Date1941-1945
Location
Mostly Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
Result Soviet and Allied victory
Belligerents
Soviet Union Soviet Union1 Germany1,
Italy (from June, 22, 1941)
Romania (from June, 22)
Finland (from June, 26),
Hungary (from June, 27)
Commanders and leaders
Soviet Union Aleksei Antonov,
Soviet Union Ivan Konev,
Soviet Union Rodion Malinovsky,
Soviet Union Kirill Meretskov,
Soviet Union Alexander Rodimtsev,
Soviet Union Konstantin Rokossovsky,
Soviet Union Pavel Rotmistrov,
Soviet Union Semyon Timoshenko,
Soviet Union Fyodor Tolbukhin,
Soviet Union Aleksandr Vasilevsky,
Soviet Union Nikolai Vatutin,
Soviet Union Kliment Voroshilov,
Soviet Union Andrei Yeremenko,
Soviet Union Matvei Zakharov,
Soviet Union Georgy Zhukov		 Fedor von Bock,
Ernst Busch,
Heinz Guderian,
Ewald von Kleist,
Günther von Kluge,
Georg von Küchler,
Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb,
Wilhelm List,
Erich von Manstein,
Walter Model,
Friedrich Paulus,
Gerd von Rundstedt,
Ferdinand Schörner,
Maximilian von Weichs
Karl Lennart Oesch,
Petre Dumitrescu
Casualties and losses
Soviet Union 26,600,000 killed in action and civilian dead,2
Soviet Union 5,000,000 missing,2
31,600,000 total3		 2,415,690 killed in action and missing,4
93 9005
681 800,5
86,400,5
863 700,5
4,141,490 total

1 Partial involvement for the Soviet Union was provided by United States and United Kingdom and for Germany by its puppet states. There were also numerous foreign units, notably the Spanish Blue Division.
2 According to data, announced by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov on May 7, 2005. The figures for both sides remain debatable.
3 Soviet health casualties are estimated by General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces to be 18,205,592 wounded and 90,881 frost-bitten.
4 Feldgrau.com.

5 В. В. Похлебкин. Великая война и несостоявшийся мир 1941 - 1945. 1994. Termed as irretrievable casualties.
Why are Civilians added to the Soviet side and not the German side and why include them at all, and why are only German dead added and not their allies and why is the highest number of German that Died in POW used. Nickmolo 15:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that civilians and military deaths should not be lumped together but separated. Civilian deaths should definitely be mentioned, I think, because they were such a huge percentage of overall deaths (over half). Most of the fighting happened in the USSR, but are there any numbers for how many civilians were killed by the Soviet army on their march to Germany? It would be fairer to mention civilian casualties on both sides. Also, can a space be added for a mention of how many German and Russian military divisions were involved and how many were destroyed? I read somewhere that about 75% of German divisions were lost on the Eastern Front (I have the article tucked away somewhere, so I'll quote the exact numbers once I manage to find it). Esn 00:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
One more thing. What do you mean by "several allied powers"? Who else was there? Some countries provided aid and supplies, but was anyone other than the Soviet Union militarily involved? Esn 01:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the lumped figures, the point is the military and civilian deaths numbers have been already merged with each other, I don't know the proportion. --Brand спойт 03:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks decent. Are the figures for "dead" or "killed" (as there's a distinction between the two)? Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Another note: the Operation Barbarossa page has some tables near the middle which state the number of German and Soviet divisions. There seem to be two different sets of numbers... Esn 01:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Barbarossa lasted from June 22, 1941 to December 1941, that's why there are different sets. --Brand спойт 03:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you misunderstood. There are two different sets of numbers in the Barbarossa article. Esn 06:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahaa. I didn't notice. I'll try to check them some day. --Brand спойт 18:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks bad. First it says Geramn military dead 2,8 million which is wrong looking at the page you see 4.3 million and there is no mention of the million or so axis dead. Compareing all Soviet losses with German military losses is a bit off, not to mention the Soviet dead are a bitt high from (28 million beeing correct). I think the whole graph is bad and there is no need to install it because it is way unsymmetrical all Soviet losses compared with German military losses in the field, no mention that Soviet POW dead were around 2.6 million - 3,6 million and that All Soviet Civilian deaths were not in combat that is what makes them civilian they did not fight. There is no need to use this poorly made graph because all needed information and more correctly compared can be found at the bottom of the page, what this graph is doing is compareing apples and oranges Beenhj 14:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Beenhj, please read my previous comments - I have many of the same concerns as you. Moreover, you sent me a message assuming that I made this infobox - I didn't. Perhaps one could argue that an infobox isn't needed for ANY war page either since the info is somewhere else on the page, but the point of an infobox is that it shows a reader all of the important info all together right at the very top of the page. I think it is important to get a general overview of what happened on the Eastern Front - including all Soviet soldiers, civilians and divisions killed by German and other Axis troops, as well as all German and Axis soldiers, civilians and divisions killed by Soviet troops. Esn 21:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've modified the box, deciding to put currently the Feldgrau figure as reliable. Among commanders only Soviet Marshals and German Field Marshals are now mentioned. Hope to find German civil casualties, but a separate data for Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian and Italian casualties appears to be hard to find. I'll try anyway. A jump to the old version of infobox is here. --Brand спойт 03:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your answer about the lumped "KIA" and "civilian" figures back there - would it be possible to "unlump" them at all? Are there any reliable numbers for the Soviet side where they aren't lumped together? I just think that we shouldn't have different counting methods for Soviet and German casualties. It would look strange if on the Soviet side the civilians and KIA were lumped together while the MIA were separate, and on the German side the KIA and MIA were lumped together, and the civilians were separate. Also, just a question, since I'm a bit unfamiliar... were any American or British troops actually present on the Eastern Front? Does the American/British involvement merit their inclusion under the definition of a Combatant? Esn 06:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
One other (minor) point: please, no "KIA"/"MIA" abbreviations; the convention is to use "killed" and "missing" written out. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, here's a revised version (old jump here). I think the only thing to be fixed are German civil casualties, probably someone can help, meanwhile I'll try to search further. --Brand спойт 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, you might want to make it a bit clearer in the note that the Spanish Blue Division were fighting for the Nazis. Also, it's still not really clear what you mean there by "partial involvement". Was it just monetary aid, troop aid, minor troop aid, equipment aid, or what? Why aren't the Spanish included in the list of "combatants" if they contributed over 40,000 troops? (I'm just trying to figure out what the "criteria" is to be included in the combatants list)
As defined, a combatant takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict, that's why I decided to include the US and UK to the notes. Spain was not a combatant also because it didn't declare war on Soviets. --Brand спойт 09:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Also... the civilian and the military casualties are not separated in the 2005 Russian report? That would definitely be a to-do item for the future (perhaps a note should be left to a future editor who can find appropriate sources and separate them). Esn 03:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
One more thing - a more precise date than "1941-1945" is needed (June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945). Esn 03:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I decided to put a new sandboxed version to the article, further comments are welcome. --Brand спойт 10:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to thank you very much for your work, Brand - no doubt there will still be arguments about this, but I do think that this is much better than having nothing there at all, and is a definite improvement on the whole. One thing still left to find is the number of civilian casualties of the Nazi side. Esn 10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
One more thing - "mainly troops and material aid" - there could stand to be some info there or a link to some info where a reader could find how MUCH aid was given and how many troops were provided. (by the way, the infobox on this talk page is now outdated) Esn 10:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
There is some info about civilian casualties on the Red Army atrocities page. It mentions a book by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, but doesn't mention which one... now THAT would be a good source. Esn 11:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The numbers are all wrong if you compare them with what is listed at the end of the text. I will change them and will remove the civilian nummbers since it is only one sided and without any source.Beenhj 00:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You will do no such thing, at least not without discussion here first. If you want to help, what you can do is find reliable numbers for the number of German civilians killed by the Soviet army. Discuss it over here please before you change anything, learn some patience, and read over what other people have said in this discussion. This is a sensitive topic, and if you do not come to agreement with the other editors this will just devolve into a useless edit war. If you don't think that one of the sources is reliable, please find some evidence. Esn 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the infobox on this talk page is outdated - the one in the article is the main one. I don't know what you mean about there not being sources, because the casualties seem to be sourced. Esn 00:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Look the the numbers at the bottom are correct and have many sources and I think this whole infobox thing is a big mistake but if you are going to use them then atleast have correct numbers for example the german numbers are pre 2004, because if you look at the bottom you can see a german guy who wrote a book in 2004 and those numbers are used, why? Because he went through all German records of 1956 and all of the soldiers that could not be found or accounted for he declared dead. Also the sources used here are ENGLISH you must use English sources in english wikipedia, look I will mail the dude who wrote half the page and you can talk with him, but now i will change the numbers so that they fit with the ENGLISH modern sources listed at the bottom of the page.Beenhj 00:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, pages shouldn't contradict each other, but why did you delete the information on the massive civilian casualties of the Soviet Union? Your edits are clumsy and hurried, and I urge you to think a bit before you go on a revision spree next time. It is not true that only English sources are allowed in the English wikipedia - see WP:Sources. Esn 00:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The argument over casualties & sources

Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive 4
DateBrand's version
Location
{{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
Soviet Union 8,700,000 military dead,2 18,300,000 civilian dead,2 5,000,000 missing3
32,000,000 total		 2,415,690 military dead and missing,4
93 9005
681 800,5
86,400,5
863 700,5
4,141,490 total

1 Partial help for the Soviet Union was provided by United States and United Kingdom (mainly troops and material aid) and for Germany by its puppet states. There were also numerous foreign units recruited by Germany, notably the Spanish Blue Division.
2 Рыбаковский, Л. Л. Великая Oтечественная: людские потери России, 2001, termed as irretrievable casualties. Soviet health casualties are estimated by General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces to be 18,205,592 wounded and 90,881 frost-bitten. However the figures for both sides remain debatable.
3 According to data, announced by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov on May 7, 2005.
4 Feldgrau.com.

5 Похлебкин, В. В. Великая война и несостоявшийся мир 1941 - 1945. 1994. Termed as irretrievable casualties.
Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive 4
DateBreenhj's version
Location
{{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
Soviet Union 10,600,000 military dead missing 4,300,000 military dead and missing
82,000 military dead and missing
281,000 military dead and missing
86,400 military dead and missing
300,000 military dead and missing
Soviet residents who joined the German army 274,400 military dead and missing
Total 5,274,400 military dead and missing
See the bottom of the page

I've removed the casualties section from the infobox until we can all agree on what it should contain. Now, to compare, Brand's version is on the right and the version that Beenhj made to make the numbers conform with those at the bottom of this article is at the bottom. Before anyone makes any comments, please read the "Casualties comparison" dicussion above. Now then, there are several questions to be answered. First of all, why do these numbers vary so much? How can we determine what is a reliable source for casualty numbers and what isn't? Several seemingly reliable sources provide very different answers, disagreeing with each other by millions of people.

Second of all, we MUST mention civilian casualties. I believe that Beenhj was wrong to just erase all mention of them, because MOST people who died in the USSR from the war were civilians. To make it fair, however, we must also mention the German civilians that were killed by the Soviet armies, and we need a reliable source for these numbers.

Esn 01:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope to give an overview on several notable casualties counts, the appropriate task is now in to-do. --Brand спойт 03:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
There are some interesting comments about this in the discussion above, particularly under the topics "RfC input" and "We need to get the numbers right". I think that if it is found too difficult to agree on a single set of numbers, it may be best to mention a "possible range" of numbers in the infobox as was suggested. Of course, it would be better to agree on a single set. Esn 05:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
All numbers are here World War II casualties and they are the same as on the bottom of the page. Civilians are all listed here World War II casualties. I still dont like the info box, you are trying to push to much information into a small place I like the way it was. Beenhj 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
That article makes no mention of civilian casualties at all, and this one mentions an "over 20 million" number buried within its text but gives no source. This is a horrible omission that ought to be fixed.
The infobox being at the top helps those people who don't want to read the whole article to search for just some basic information that should be readily available at the beginning. The infobox being there does not impair the rest of the article in any way, but is meant to make things easier for the casual reader by mentioning just the most basic stuff at the very top. If the reader then wishes to probe deeper, he can read the rest of the article. Esn 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put a post on the Russia Portal regarding this article, and the editors over there are rather shocked at its poor state and have put forward some nice suggestions. You can read their comments over here. Esn 00:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About German civilian casualties - there is apparently an article about this: Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII Esn 05:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thought I'd mention something: User:Beenhj was a sockpuppet of User:SuperDeng (who also had about 15 other sockpuppets), and has been indefinitely blocked from editing wikipedia. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SuperDeng I wasn't here at the beginning of the year, but by looking at the posts above I see that Deng wasn't very well-liked by the other editors here.

Also, the numbers in that graph at the bottom of the page were added in by Deng - notice his message in the discussion above, "Also the sources used here are ENGLISH you must use English sources in english wikipedia, look I will mail the dude who wrote half the page and you can talk with him, but now i will change the numbers so that they fit with the ENGLISH modern sources listed at the bottom of the page." Of course, the "dude who wrote half the page" was a reference to his other username (see the "requests for checkuser" page). And contrary to what he said, English sources are not the exclusive sources allowed on the English wikipedia, nor are they always the preffered sources (only if they replicate information from the most reliable source).

I really feel that we should try to get some things done while Deng is still blocked (even if he'll probably find some way around his block). First of all, is that 2004 source given for the graph at the bottom of this page more reliable that the 2001 source that Brand used for the casualty numbers in his infobox? Esn 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Finnish casualties are too large, that would include casualties from both, Winter War and Lapland War. The casualties are sourced in Continuation War, and the same numbers from the source are templated here. Correct number is 58,715 --Pudeo (Talk) 20:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Other axis participants?

Shouldn't other axis countries such as bulgaria, croatia, and slovakia be added to the list of participants on the axis since they were eventually invaded by soviet union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami888 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 17 November 2006

As far as I remember they have not declared war, so formally they are not combatants. --Brand спойт 04:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we require a formal declaration of war. There are many conflicts out there (Vietnam being the one that comes to mind immediately) where the participants didn't officially declare war. Oberiko 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)/Archive_4&oldid=789373210"