Talk:Victory Day (Eastern Europe)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 World War II task force

Contents

[edit] Photo

Do we have room for this nice photo (right) on this wikiarticle ? -- PFHLai 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Why do you think I aploaded it yesterday? :). Well, also for a Tedder article but there it may get replaced. --Irpen 19:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This (left) looks good, too. -- PFHLai 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altered text.

I have removed this line from the piece shown, "which contributed most to the defeat of Nazi Germany" and replaced it with, "who lost the most men in it's contribution to defeating Nazi Germany," which is more accurate.

There is no doubt that the Russians suffered terribly at the hands of the Nazi's and I do not wish to diminish that in any way, however, the defeat of Nazi Germany was a combined effort on behalf of the Allies.

If 'D' Day hadn't occurred when it did, Hitler would have been able to send reinforcements to the Eastern front. As it was, he had to divert them south.

One shouldn't be so subjective when posting comments and look at the wider picture. (message left by IP user)

D-day occured when the Soviets already liberated their territory on their own and were up to do the job on their own (admitedly with larger losses). The allies waited with landing to be sure that most job of defeating Nazis are done by the Soviets for the reasons that are too lengthy to discuss here. The main goal of the second front was to prevent stalinization of entire Germany and, perhaps most of the rest of Europe as well. It helped that all right but it was not decisive for the German defeat. --Irpen 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Irpen. Perhaps it should be re-phrased to say, "did the most to defeat the Nazi's on German soil." Although I'm not sure that that is entirly accurate. Britain and America had agreed with Russia to let them get to Berlin first.

The phrase "which contributed most to the defeat of Nazi Germany" implies that other efforts were pretty much insignificant, which would be a travesty of the truth. It ignores Britains lone stand (where was Russia then?), it also ignores all the other campaigns, Africa, Italy, Greece, France etc etc.

(Message left by IP user)

It doesn't ignore neither British nor US contribution. It's just implies that it was less than the Soviet one which is impossible to doubt. So, you correction is out of place, sorry. Please register. It makes discussion easier. --Irpen 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It implies that the Russian contribution in WWII was greater than any other and that is simply not true. How would Russia have survived if not for American aid and British help? You cannot take the fight against Germany on it's own and ignore all the other conflicts in Europe and Africa. I assume you are Russian and are showing a very nationalistic point of view. It is therefore subjective. Not one country did more to defeat Nazi Germany than any other, but if one had to point to a country that did most, I would naturally point to the UK who stood alone against Germany for over a year. -Amstacey 20:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


I suggest we discuss the American and British help at talk:Lend-Lease if this is what you mean. Note that it started pouring only after the Germans were thrown off at Moscow and Stalingrad was in the making (if not over yet). Second, my the Western sources it amounted for no about 10-12% of the Soviet's own industrial output. While an impressive number, it is still 1/10. Your unsybstinated accusations of nationalism are really offensive. Please avoid it. Africa was a minor theatre compared to what was going on in Europe and after the Fall of France the Soviets were the only force to fight the Nazis there. Britain (when, as you say, was "staying alone") was defending its skies and the islands from air raids. It didn't attempt to fight the Nazis in Europe. Your assertion that it possibly did more than anyone else doesn't stand any criticism. Britain and France could have prevented this whole mess from the onset but they chose to appeace Hitler and give him first CZ and then PL. Read Western Betrayal for more. --Irpen 20:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot accept that phrase. It simply is not correct! You talk about the British and French appeasement, which I am in agreement with, it was wrong. But where was Russia at the beginning of the war - also trying (and succeeding) in taking Polish land, then negotiating a treaty with Germany. Russia only entered the war because Germany broke the treaty and please do not just brush aside what happened in the other theatres of war as though they don't matter. They may not have mattered to Russia, because Russia wasn't involved. The number of soldiers lost in the war does not determine who did the most. Like I say, it was an all round joint effort. I will continue changing that sentence ad infinitum, unless and until banned from the site.

In addition,perhaps you would like to check this link http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm which provides a time line for the occurances of the world wars. Russia, in many respects was no better than Germany and set out to expand their own empire, taking land and occupying countries that caused them to be kicked out of the league of Nations. During that time, Whilst we may not have been in a position to mount a land offensive, britain certainly continued an air offensive against Germany and continued fighting in other arena's Amstacey 00:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, you will be blocked for the next 24 hours as per WP:3RR. You already broke that (counting the edits before you registered) but since you are new here, it is excusable. Now, back to the topic. What matters in deciding on whose input was the most crucial is not who lost more people but who destroyed a larger part of the Nazi army. There is no doubt on who did that. As for what was Russia doing, before dividing Poland with Nazis and concluding the Soviet-Nazi pact, Russia was the only power in Europe to oppose the Munich deal and offer a meaningful military help to Czechoslovakia. Later, it hinted many times (through France and directly) that it is prepared to assist Poland, should it have asked. For a totally understandable reason Poland, which found itself between the rock and the hard place, refused because accepting the Soviet help had some dangers as well. However, as Poland found out, relying on Britain was even more dangerous. Anyway, that's off-topic. That Soviet Union contributed more than anyone towards the Victory is not disputed by any serious historian and the article should say so. --Irpen 01:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that I am not the only one who finds that phrase contentious. However, I have done a little more research and made some other enquiries. Out of that comes a recommendation from a historian who doesn't wish to be named. This person is not sure if you are speaking from a historical point of view or if the intent was to simply show how the Russian army Generals felt at that time. If it's the former statement, then it should be qualified with the words, "on land in Europe." If it's the latter, then it's probably true, although I think it should then be worded, "who believed that they contributed most to the defeat of Nazi Germany." I will await your response before editing, unless you do so first. Amstacey 15:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern European Countries

I have removed:

  • The new holiday is not very popular, as many believe the date is a beginning of just another occupation, by Soviets, rather then liberation from Nazi Germany[1].

As it is relevant to May 8, not May 9.

It will be also intersting which other countries switched from May 9 to May 8. abakharev 00:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As it is relevant to May 8, not May 9.

It's relevent to that event of Victory Day, the cause of the controversy isn't because of May 8 but with the events itself. Anyway I will gladly provide explanation why the date was changed. :) --Molobo 17:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, pls cease polonizing the articles all around. You are welcome to start an article on Polish hatred of the Victory over Germany if you think that it is a topic of merit. This stuff has no place here. --Irpen 17:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please engage in serious discussion. World's history isn't limited to Russia. Unfortunetely Poland and Russia share much of world's history. This article shouldn't be dominated either by Russian or Polish history. Poland was forced to be part of Soviet zone for almost half a century and its situation and choices also have to be presented as well as view of Polish society. and historians --Molobo 17:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is speach by President of Poland regarding the issue of this date : [2] Why certainly we can't include the whole text as short summary on position of Polish government would be in order. Right now readers don't have an idea while Poland changed the date. --Molobo 01:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And for that, as I suggested, you write the Polish hatred of the Victory Day, Molobo. Don't Polonize every article you see. --Irpen 01:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't why should there be information on Poland if Poland's history is involved with the history. Your answer can't be serious and If you continue in such manner I am afraid whatever credibility you had left will be gone. And let me recall our honourable President's words: The Poland that arose as a result of the Yalta accords was not a sovereign country. Already in March 1945 the legal authorities of the Polish Underground State were deceitfully arrested and taken to Moscow. On all of our territories - for political reasons - the terror and persecutions began. The arrests, imprisonments and exiles started. Soldiers of the Home Army, Polish patriots, men and women who had shed their blood for an independent fatherland, were treated by the communist rulers of Poland as criminals, were dealt with in an inhuman manner. The best sons and daughters of the nation were humiliated and slandered. Many of us to this day remember posters with the inscription: "Spit-soiled dwarf of reactions". --Molobo 01:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War contribution assertion

The phrase "which contributed most to the defeat of Nazi Germany" is a very simplisitic assertion about a complex war. Saying "it's obvious" is clearly not an effective argument. I move that the phrase is removed in that the assertion cannot be (and is not) supported. This is not because of "truth" in one direction or the other, but because it so overly broad and simplistic an assertion that it is impossible to assign truth. Furthermore it is not essential to the foundation of the article. If one wants to make a judgement about the subject of "who contributed most" they can do so by reading available material about the war and drawing their own conculsion. They may very well come to that very conclusion, but it is not for this article nor any other to assert such a thing.

(Almost)No one doubts the immense sacrifices made by the people of the Soviet Union during WWII. The suggested removal of this assertion is not meant to disacknowledge those sacrifices. Rather it is meant to avoid a simple conclusion where a simple conculsion is inappropriate.

Andy 06:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point Andy, I agree entirely. Amstacey 13:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What's more is that I'm not so sure URSS wanted Germany to sign a specific surrender because of contributions or something.

In Reims, the guy who signed the protocol was IIRC general Susloparov (who in fact did not have the power to sign it). He signed it anyway, but insisted that this protocol would be considered as preliminary.

So when Stalin found it out, he insisted that a second capitulation should be signed, so this time Germany would surrender to someone representing Soviet High Command (i.e. Zhukov).

I'm quoting from memory (don't have books with me atm), but I think we have to check this. If it's true, this section should be reworded rather than fought for... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There were two Generals in the race to Berlin and Stalin had told them that the winner would be the one accredited with defeating the Germans on the eastern front. It was Zhukov's men that reached and took the Reichstag, hence the reason why he had to witness and sign the surrender document. Amstacey 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm quite sure that the first one was only preliminary because the guy did not have the required powers. I'll try to dig it up... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


I think I must make it clear that my objection is not related to *specific* facts about the war. I Rather my objection is to asserting a simple concusion to a complex situation, and specificially in a side note of a tangential article to WWII/Great Patriotic War. That stated, I dont think the assertion should exist modified or otherwise.

Andy 20:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally Andy, in hindsight, your view is more accurate than mine. Amstacey 20:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how the article has been changed again, with the words referring to Europe removed, I have deleted the entire bit about contributing the most to the defeat of Germany. Andy is absolutely correct, as per his opening paragraph above. Amstacey 13:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement about contribution is needed to explain Soviet insisting, I rephrased it, but some better word should be picked instead of "according to...", I couldn't find it. --Yms 18:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

From a programe I watched on the history channel recently, Stalin had promised two Generals that the first to Berlin would be considered the "winner" and be accorded the accolade of being "recognised" as being the General that defeated the Germans on the Eastern front. This is far more likely to be the reason for insisting on another surrender, in order that General Zhukov gets his name on the surrender document as the "winning" general, NOT as the country that did the most! Amstacey 22:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

addendum to the above; I would have been happy to accept the subtle change in wording, however, someone else appears not to wish to compromise, so I have reverted it back yet again.

[edit] And why did Poland change the date ?

It seems Ghirnadajo and other users want this to remain a mystery to any reader... --Molobo 13:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Because of political considerations" is just enough. There is no need to make this article a tribune for your personal opinions. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What political considerations ? This is enigmatic. --Molobo 15:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC) There is no need to make this article a tribune for your personal opinions Is there a room for the opinion of President of Poland regarding that issue ? --Molobo 15:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime Lysy changed the wording. I like his version... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you answer my questions ? --Molobo 20:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


What political considerations ?

This is irrelevant since Lysy edited that section.

Is there a room for the opinion of President of Poland regarding that issue?

Not when this room is bigger than the article itself. Just put an external link to it. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevant since Lysy edited that section. I don't see explanation why Poland changed the date. A reader should be informed what were the reasons for the change. --Molobo 20:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Not when this room is bigger than the article itself Do you believe that the statement of President of Poland is sufficiant as a source for explanation as to why the date was changed ? --Molobo 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The answer why Poland changed the date is simple: Poland is not in the same time zone as Moscow (and never was) :-) The correct question would be: "why would Poland celebrate 9th of May before 1989?" --Lysytalk 21:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I have read and understand from the various articles, it seems rather obvious why Poland changed the date. They don't wish to associated with the subsequent Russian occupation and to stamp their sovereign status on the issue. It is pertinant to the article and I see no reason why it should not be included. Amstacey 01:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Compromise solution

Perhaps that the Soviet Union lost most of the lives in European Front. --Molobo 17:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviets destroyed the largest part of the German Army. This is indisputable. Hence the statement. Please don't troll. --Irpen 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

They also made that Army possible by giving it neccessary resources in 1939-1941. Thus saying they contributed to victory is totally POV. It can also be argued that that USA contributed in largest part. Without vital supplies included in Lend Lease Soviets would be in dire situation. --Molobo 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

About lend-lease read above and talks elsewhere. In short, it amounted to about 10-12% of the Soviet's own indistrial output (western sources) and it started coming after the Germans where thrown off from Moscow and Stalingrad was a done deal. While an important part, what you say cannot "be argued". --Irpen 19:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In short, it amounted to about 10-12% of the It's not the amount that counts, but what it contained and at what time. Giving a industrial output as basis of importance of the deliveries isn't objective as it includes 1945 and things that were mass produced in SU without mentioning rare goods that SU desperetely needed and which USA provided.Also SU contributed to German strenght in years 1939-1941. --Molobo 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


It is so ridculous to read this paradoxical bickering. The traditional bashing of the soviet union was disregard of human life. And by contrast, western democracies supposedly respect human values more. You watch these propaganda american movies where "Saving Private Ryan" worth the destruction af a jet plane. And now you are saying that several thousand of American trucks makes a decisive contribution to Soviet victory. Disgusting. `'mikka (t) 19:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What is really disgusting is praising SU for the disregard of the lifes of its own citizens. --Lysytalk 07:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Who is praising this? `'mikka (t) 08:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviets would lose much less lives should others' assistance had been more meaningful, as well as if there was no pre-war obstruction by Poland and allies to the Soviet proposals to meaningfully take on Nazi Germany as early as at the Czechoslovakia stage. --Irpen 07:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a need to take Germany at all if Soviet Russia didn't help to rebuild German army since 1920... --Molobo 10:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start historical "if"s. `'mikka (t) 08:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I second this request to stop with the historical "if"s. If you guys really want to argue like this, wikipedia is not the place for it. Please be civil to each other, and please stay away from tangent topics.

Andy 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the number of lives lost or taken provides one country the right to say they did the most. The British defeated Rommel at El Alamein before the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad, that would have had an effect on German morale. Then the allies attacked Italy, opening up a front there and the Germans had to help the Italians. That was followed by the Invasion of Normandy, yet another front, preventing Hitler from sending reinforcements to the Eastern front and all the while, the Allies are bombing Germany, hampering their war effort in manufacturing weapons and supplies. Coupled with this was the assistance provided to Russia by the allies. It may be Russia's belief that they did the most, but thats all it is, their belief. To state it as fact, is, as I have stated before, subjective, biased and nationalistic. Amstacey 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is evidently a surprise for you, but in order to defeat a country, you have to defeat its army, especially if you're facing an enemy who would not surrender easily. (Wow! it is metaphysical isn't it?). Compared to the Eastern Front, the battle of El Alamein was quite a minor engagement. German troops lost more than half a million soldiers during Stalingrad, a would the Wehrmacht never recovered from.
So, if a country A was able to destroy 80% of enemy troops while country B only destroyed 20%, country A can rightfully claim that it contributed the most to enemy defeat. What seems to be the problem? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, to deny the obvious, OTOH, is simply a cold war propaganda. --Irpen 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No offence intended, but you just do not seem to realise that there were other contributing factors to the situation that cannot and should not be ignored. Russians threw men at the Germans like lemmings following each other over the cliff face. Eventually, numbers won the day on the Eastern Front. YOU believe Russians contributed the most and that is your right, but it is NOT your right to make it a statement of fact, it is disputed. I have tried to be reasonable in my outlook of that belief and re-worded it, but some would appear to be intransigent on keeping a disputed point listed as fact. Opinions and beliefs are not facts and don't belong on Wikipedia, it does the encyclopedia a dis-service to let it remain. Amstacey 21:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No offence intended, but you just do not seem to realise that there were other contributing factors to the situation that cannot and should not be ignored.
Then state them, instead of starting an edit war! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Try reading my post before the last one! Amstacey 21:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? From a programe I watched on the history channel recently, Stalin had promised two Generals that the first to Berlin would be considered the "winner" and be accorded the accolade of being "recognised" as being the General that defeated the Germans on the Eastern front.???
I'm sorry, but a TV program is not a reliable reference... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, here to save you scrolling back to the right paragraph, here it is, reproduce for your benefit, "The British defeated Rommel at El Alamein before the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad, that would have had an effect on German morale. Then the allies attacked Italy, opening up a front there and the Germans had to help the Italians. That was followed by the Invasion of Normandy, yet another front, preventing Hitler from sending reinforcements to the Eastern front and all the while, the Allies are bombing Germany, hampering their war effort in manufacturing weapons and supplies. "

As for minimising the lend lease effort, read the preface to this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0739107364/102-1825589-1226503?v=glance&n=283155 Then there is this; "Additionally, the USSR received lend-lease aid, mostly from the United States, valued at over $11 billion. Among the more significant items were 409,526 trucks, 12,161 tanks and self-propelled guns, 14,000 airplanes, and 325,784 tons of explosives. Furthermore, the Soviet Union was able to commit more than 90 percent of its military strength against Germany, while the Germans were forced to retain a large part of theirs (35 to 45 percent in the years 1943 and 1944) in other theaters.

Earl F. Ziemke Historian, Office of the Chief of Military History Department of the Army" taken from http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_6.html (scroll to the very bottom) I read elsewhere that the Americans provided some 60% of the trucks used to mobilise Russian forces. So the lend lease should not be belittled. How would Russia have mobilised it's forces without lend lease and don't forget the aircraft. There are just too many other contributing factors to make the statement Russia did the most Amstacey 22:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

El Alamein? Have an effect on German morale? Don't make me laugh. Stalingrad had an effect on German morale (with three days of mourning and so on).
Normandy? Yes, the Allies (finally) opened that second front Stalin was demanding since 1942. However, you will notice that by June 1944, German situation was already quite hopeless.
As for the lend-lease, two things. First, if you think USSR would lose without trucks, explosives and so on, dream on. Second, lend-lease was paid back by the URSS. Who gives a d*** where a country gets its equipment. Germany bought ore from Sweden, USA bought raw materials from South America and so on. That's called international trade. By no means it can be used to gauge a contribution to German defeat.
So, we're left with the only possible way of measuring that: military power. The largest land battle ever fought by American and English forces during WWII (Battle of the Bulge) mobilized ~300,000 men on both sides. Kursk mobilized more than 2,000,000, 4M for Dnieper and so on. And the number of German troops chewed up by URSS forces is far more important. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

First, if you think USSR would lose without trucks, explosives and so on, dream on. You are free to provide study that without logistics, explosive materials USSR would win the war. --Molobo 23:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Without USA the SU wouldn't be able to win this battles. Hundreds of thousands of trucks, aviation fuel, food etc. --Molobo 23:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Trucks! Right. That's why Soviets won. Any other reasons? --Irpen 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This statement is at the very least unsourced and cannot be proved anyway (or would be a historical "if"). The fact that URSS destroyed the most part of German military power can be proved. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why Soviets won. Any other reasons? Thank you for agreeing that Soviets won because of USA's help. The fact that URSS destroyed the most part of German military power can be proved It can be shown how many were killed by Soviet soldiers. But it doesn't equal the most contribution to war. Without American trucks, food, fuel etc Soviets would hardly won. As it is the Soviets who contributed to Germany's strenght in years 1939-1941 it can hardly be said they contributed the most to its defeat. In fact out of all other countries they contributed most to German victories. --Molobo 23:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, don't expect to be fed anymore. Enough for now. --Irpen 00:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember also that in WWI Germany suffered from naval blockade that brought it on the knees. That blockade was impossible in WW2. There is in fact a German war propaganda poster from 1940 showing lines of supplies from SU with the statements with Soviets we are unbeatable Britain or something like that :) So I would be carefull with the contribution thing. --Molobo 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The defeat of the Germans at Stalingrad followed very shortly AFTER El Alamein, the first SERIOUS defeat of German troops by the Allies. Who are you to say it didn't affect the German morale. I'm not saying it did, just that the fall of Stalingrad was surprisingly soon after so it may have done. As for belittling the lend lease effort of the USA, I think that is rather unfair on the efforts made. Sure the USA made a great deal out of it financially, but the aid should not be dismissed. Just how would Russia have been able to mobilise it's troops to the extent that it did without them? Don't forget, the provision of the equipment provided enabled the Russians to concentrate on building and making other weapons and munitions like their T34 tanks (which they did superbly well I hasten to add). You're comment, "Who gives a d*** where a country gets its equipment." says it all. You have no interest in the fact that this was a joint effort by all parties. As for the single largest land battle, well there you go again, you cannot make the decision based on one element of the war. What about the war at sea and in the air? What about the allied bombing of Germany that you so conveniently ignore? You mention Normandy, but forget Italy was before Normandy, so there were two other fronts that Germany had to effectively watch. As for paying back the lend lease, no, Russia did not pay back lend lease. They refused to pay back until around 1970 I believe. So you are showing yourself to be short of truthful knowledge. Amstacey 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction for Grafikm: Where, please, did I compare El Alamein to to the Eastern Front? Amstacey 15:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


I suggest this compromise. Instead of "which contributed most to the defeat of Nazi Germany." Change it to, "which contributed immense resources to the defeat of Nazi Germany." How does that sound. It seems a lot fairer to me. Amstacey 20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be which contributed immense resources to the victory and later defeat of Nazi Germany --Molobo 09:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Yes Molobo, that does seem more appropriate. Irpen, looking at the comments of your last edit, you have to stop looking at single aspects of the war and look at it as a whole. The phrase "did the most" is demeaning and insulting to all the other countries that did their part. Until you come to realise that and become of the ability to monitor Wikipedia in an unbiased and objective viewpoint, you really should not be moderating on this board. It is arguable that Russia only defeated the Germans on the Eastern Front, not by tactical strength, but by sheer weight of numbers. Amstacey 12:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, talking about URSS contributing to German victory is absurd. True, there was Molotov-Ribentropp pact and things like that. But on the other hand, Western countries invested a lot of money in Germany and helped them to get their war industry off the ground. Not to mention the fact that occupied western countries actively collaborated with Germany and even sent some forces to fight on the Eastern front (as did Hungary or Romania for instance). Yes, just about everyone (starting from English) screwed up and failed to anticipate what would come next. But that does not mean URSS gets the full responsability of it. Yet, if I look at corresponding articles, I do not seem to find all these. Consequently, what we have here is a double standard.
Second, your point of view on "sheer weight of numbers" is going back to Cold War, and is not confirmed by modern sources. In all military books, casualties of up to 3 to 1 during an offensive operation against a heavily entrenched enemy are considered acceptable. And in a few occasions, it was even lower than that (Consider operation Bagration, for instance).
Yes, in the beginning of the war it was a total mess-up, with all the consequences resulting from it. But by late 1942, casualties on both sides were quite even, with only slightly more Soviet casualties (Stalingrad and Kursk are typical examples). Sure, when you have to storm a defensive ring (like in Dnieper campaign), you're kinda expected to have heavier casualties than the enemy. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Grafikm, please make it clear who you are responding to. I have said nothing about Russia assisting the Germans. As for sheer weight of numbers, I still stand by that comment. Any other country that lost so many men in the first onslought would almost certainly have had to capitulate, but Russia was able to draw on a huge population, so sheer weight of numbers still stands. Also, why remove the dispute notice, the dispute is not resolved! You also refer to the largest "land battle," no disagreement with that statement, so perhaps the statement should be changed to one I used earlier, stating that! Also, please stop commenting "(revert POV-pushing)" I am not stating a point of view but a fact that the war was won due to a joint effort on behalf of ALL the allies. It is RUSSIAN nationalistic, subjective and biased opinion that is a point of view. Amstacey 21:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] True reasons

OK, let's try to find a compromise about all this.

I finally took the time to reread Zhukov's memoirs and a few additionnal sources and it's actually pretty clear. I expanded that part and added the quote from Zhukov's memoirs:

You will note it is a quote so what I (or, as the matter of fact, anybody) think of it does not matter. That's what Stalin thought, and that's why he was infuriated and insisted on organizing another ceremony in Berlin.

Hope that will end the edit war... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That settles it for me - thank you! That makes it clear that it was Stalin's opinion, which was never doubted.Amstacey 12:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't this be renamed ?

To Victory Day (Soviet) ? It was celebrated outside Eastern Europe region by Soviet Union parts in Asia, and its main basis was Soviet one not geographic. Also since regaining independence from Soviet occupation not many countries in the region celebrate the victory of Soviets over Nazi's. --Molobo 02:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date and time of the ceasefire

The time that all hostilities were to cease was 8 May 23:01 CET. But the British were on British Double Summer Time by then so the time of the ceasefire was 0001 9 May BDST[3]. Was Germany on Central European Summer Time ? If so then the local time was 9 May 0001 hours. Unfortunatly I have not been able to find a source which confirms the local time that the forces engaged in the war were using, although there was a site which claimed that all allied forces on the Western Front were using the same time as the UK, it no longer seems to be on line. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/c/Talk%7EVictory_Day_%28Eastern_Europe%29_34ab.html"