Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Atrocities

Since the issue of atrocities (both military and civilian victims) seems to be a bit contentious, should this become a separate page with just a brief summary in the main article? DMorpheus 20:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Move page to Eastern Front (WW2)

I would like to move this page so as to avoid confusion with the Eastern Front in World War I. Is "Eastern Front (WW2)" acceptable? Oberiko 14:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just got an edit conflict saving my naming rationale... Of the various names, "Eastern Front" is by far the most common in English sources, and although there have been many eastern fronts, this is by far the biggest of all and could be said to "own" the term. Also, of the dozen-odd links to the term from existing WP articles, every one expected to link to this one. So the usual thing to do is to let this one be "Eastern Front" by itself, and add a note in italics to the top linking to Eastern Front (World War I). See Thomas Mann for something similar that I did just yesterday.

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

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

Russia's attack on Finland

I restored the reference to preemptive attack. First of all since I think the truth has to be honored. Secondly, since I guess Kahkonen's wording[1] pretty soon could be exchanged for the usual less truthful stuff from Soviet history books (i.e. "Finland attacked SSSR"), which is somewhat less likely if a hint to German troops in northern Finland is kept in the text. Finally, this wording might be seen as a NPOV-balanced compromise version. ;-) /Tuomas 09:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

'Counteroffensive' Section

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

Great Patriotic War

I believe that the Great Patriotic War deserves a short article of its own. It should explain specifically:

  1. History of the term
  2. the starting date controversy
  3. Differences between the terms World War II, the Eastern Front of World War II and the Great Patriotic War

Note that, although the term is quite popular even in the West, it is not equal to WWII or Eastern Front. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Are there significant differences between the Great Patriotic War and the Eastern Front? So far as I know, the main change would be the inclusion of the Finnish War(s), which are already listed as being considered part of the Eastern Front by many. Oberiko 13:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My feeling (if such are of any value at all) is that this article ought to be re-named (and focused) on the Great Patriotic War, while an article on the Eastern Front (WWII) could be fairly much shorter. In my opinion, it's yet another expression of Americo-centrism or Western-centrism to call the article on the Great Patriotic War for the Eastern Front, but I see that it may be easy to misinterpret me here. I am not in favor of parallell articles in principle. I would not at all like a situation were virtually the same scope was covered by two articles, one with the "eastern name" and one with the "western name". /Tuomas 00:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is the English and not the Russian WP, so we're expected to title according to what's most familiar to English readers. Calling it Americo-centrism seems a little like an attempt to lean it towards the Soviet POV - to some extent the Soviets brought it on themselves by embedding POV into the name, not unlike the Confederates calling it the "War of Northern Aggression", or the Bushies calling it "Operation Iraqi Freedom", and you'll notice that both of those link to more-neutral titles (at least as I write this :-) ) Stan 05:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Our policy is that articles names should be that which english speakers most commonly call it. This is BY FAR most commonly called the Eastern front, so the article belongs here. →Raul654 06:46, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Last point from me on the issue, I don't really think the Fin's much care for the title Great Patriot War anyway. Oberiko
Just avoid to include the Winter War of November 1939 – March 1940.
--Ruhrjung 08:30, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)


Due to the move to the current name of Eastern Front (WWII), the following sentence is wrong:

The war began as Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941 4:00 am, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union; and ended on 8 May 1945 when Germany surrendered following the Battle of Berlin.

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

Poland

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

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

As has been stated on Category talk:World War II campaigns and theatres neither the Polish Defense War of 1939 nor the fights in Yugoslavia and Greece are usually referred to as Eastern Front. That's why they were left alone, as separate sub-categories of the WWII operations. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:43, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be using a circular argument here. In that discussion you said

However, take a look at Eastern Front and Eastern Front (WWII) and check what are these articles about.

It reminds me of the old war song that went "We're here, because we're here, because we're here". I am suggesting changing this article to include all the campaings on the eastern front of World War II, between all the contestents not a subset as it is at the moment.

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

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

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

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


Additional reason why the Nazis lost that should be mentioned

  • One important reason why the Nazis lost was the unnecessary alienation of the civilian population that was hostile to the Soviets by German arrogance and Nazi racial policy, treating the Slavic popuation as Untermenschen. The Nazis could have profited from the civilian hostilty to communism and Ukranian nationalism. (See also Lebensraum, Commissar_order, Einsatzgruppen, and Fueher decree (do not read , top secret)). The Soviet POWs were not sufficiently fed, which the Soviet soldiers got to know in the course of time. In other words, the Germans left the Soviets no choice. Hitler objected to slavic divisions because of his opinions on the race of slavic people until the very last moment, see Vlasov army. Andries 12:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


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

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

Historiography

I think that the section Historiography needs attention.

As V-E Day came, Allied forces in Western Europe [not including Italy] consisted of 4 ½ million men, including 9 armies (5 of them American—one of which, the Fifteenth, saw action only at the last), 23 corps, 91 divisions (61 of them American), 6 tactical air commands (4 American), and 2 strategic air forces (1 American). The Allies had 28,000 combat aircraft, of which 14,845 were American, and they had brought into Western Europe more than 970,000 vehicles and 18 million tons of supplies. At the same time they were achieving final victory in Italy with 18 divisions (7 of them American). [2]

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed background section

The following was contributed by 161.142.96.218. I think the proposal would need considerable editing to fit into the article, and I do not have the required time right now. Reading the contribution, I wonder if it maybe was rather thought of as an introduction to the article on Operation Barbarossa. In any case, the text would need serious work with regard to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

The decision to go eastwards had been made partly because of Britain's surprisingly stubborn resistance in the Western theatre, and partly because the Nazi government harboured (credible) suspicions of the Kremlin's ominous military actions since 1939. Hitler had long considered invading the U.S.S.R., even before he had launched his concentrated campaign against Britain. He had a morbid fear and rabid hatred of Communism and vowed to quash its primary champion once and for all.
Furthermore, when the Germans were busy overrunning France in June 1940, Stalin had already seized the opportunity to gobble up the Baltic States (old German territory which Hitler had hoped to re-annex into his Reich). Later on, again without notifying Hitler, the Soviet government made demands on Romania to hand over Bessarabia. This brought the Soviets closer to the precious oilfields vital to feed the German war machine.
Hitler waged war on the Soviet Union against the grave misgivings of his generals, but his ego refused to listen. When the High Command argued that it would mean a two-front war, he retorted that they could not risk defeating Britain first as long as Soviet Russia remained a threat at the "back door".
Thus the grand scheme was carried out on an early June morning in 1941. The two-front war, which Hitler himself originally condemned, but later brought upon himself, had begun — with fatal consequences for his Thousand-Year Reich.

--Ruhrjung 08:26, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

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

Anon proposals

I moved the following from my talk page, I believe it belongs here. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]

No, how could I forget Poland. I don't think I did, but the Polish campaign was hardly part of the same war as what's covered by the article on the Eastern Front, i.e. what the Russians call the Great Patriotic War.
But wouldn't it be fair to tell that the Soviet Union actually didn't succeed in their attempted invasion of Finland? After all, they managed to take eastern Poland and the Baltic republics, but only some tenth of Finland, which was far less then they had aspired to. /M.L.
That's the same confusion I had with this article. Currently it's about the Eastern Front of World War II. As such, Polish Defence War of 1939 was a part of the same war, but not the same front. If we renamed the article to Great Patriotic War that would be much easier, but so far saying that the war started in 1941 even if several sentences above it is stated that "the war" refers to World War II, would be misleading.
As to whether Soviet Union succeed in Finland or not is a matter of dispute, I believe the completely neutral statement I proposed is much better. Especially that from other perspective, the Soviet Union managed to crush all Finnish resistance by March 1940 and forced the nation into submission - which is equally true. I'd say let's stick to simple, NPOV sentences. Also, what they aspired to is not that clear either. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
most of what was ceded in 1940 was lost at the negotiation table, not in battle
most of what was ceded in 1940 was lost at the negotiation table, not in battle
Halibutt, you must have been reading Soviet history books. No, it's established beyond doubt that the Soviet Union attempted to conquer all of Finland (including Åland of course), but (in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) halt at the Swedish border — at least temporarily. I consider attempts to falsify the history on this point as pro-Soviet propaganda, that there is absolutely no excuse for now, after the collapse of Communism in Europe.
It's not a "neutral" statement to give the impression that an invasion was somehow realized when the truth is that the operation was aborted after over four months of heavy fighting. And it makes a brutally confusing impression when the article somewhat later can't avoid to mention that the Finns fought back a second time, in July 1941. The Soviet Union had most definitely not "managed to crush all Finnish resistance", a wording that would seriously offend not so few Finns. Taipale was still in Finnish hands, some miles from the old border, and Viipuri was approached, but far from conquered, by the Red Army.
I've expressed support for renaming this article before. /Tuomas 10:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You got my words wrong, Tuomas. I had no intention to offend any of the heroic defenders of Finland. I personally also resent that the French general staff did not approve to send the Polish Carpathian Rifle Brigade to aid the Finns and sent it to Narvik instead. This however does not change the fact that by the beginning of spring the war was lost for Finland. No serious help arrived, much of the defence lines along the borders was lost and there wasn't much chance for continuation of organised resistance. The Finns would most surely conduct armed operations for months if not years, but the battle-hardened Finnish troops would not be able to sustain technical and numerical supperiority of the enemy for much longer. That is why Mannerheim asked for peace negotiations.
The Winter War was not won by the Finns since it couldn't have been won. The heroic defence against overwhelming odds can be considered both a moral and tactical victory. The Moscow Peace was also a great success of Finnish diplomacy (contrary to what might seem from the harsh peace terms). However, on a larger scale claiming that the Finns won the war is an overstatement. It was a draw at best, if not a defeat.
Anyway, back to the topic. The invasion did not fail since Soviet Union effectively did invade Finnish land. The war was fought entirely on Finnish soil and in the effect it was Finland who lost territory. Perhaps the Soviets wished to gain more from this conflict and that's what I personally believe. However, I have yet to see a document proving that the Red Army did not successfuly invade Finland and was repulsed on the borders.
Finally, stating that there was a Soviet invasion of Finland is not more POV than stating that there was a failed invasion of Finland. I did read Soviet history books too (fascinating lecture, really), but I can think for myself. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:35, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Successful invasions there are many of in history. Iraq and Poland comes easily to mind. That doesn't say that the following occupation is a similar success. But in the case of Finland, the Soviet union had to (temporarily!) give up its plans for an invasion when they after four months had conquered about five percents of the territory they aimed at. They did so, well knowing that the occupation would be as problematic as the fightings had been. Equally much (approximately) they gained in the peace negotiations, and some more after the peace, but you can not call this a realized invasion of Finland. It was an attempted and aborted (if you find the word failed too judgemental) invasion. Already in November 1940, Stalin had to be halted by Hitler not to finish the invasion. By then, noone else could. /Tuomas 12:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

I do not think that the the Winter War should be included in the Eastern Front because it is not normally considered to be part of WWII as it is not clear on who's side the two warring parties were fighting on (apart from their own).

Maybe they didn't fight on anyone's side. Well, a Finnish view would be that the Finns fought on the side of the West, defending Scandinavia, as has been the Finns' role since Christianization some 900 years ago. :-)) /Tuomas 12:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But I would include the Continuation War because as Churchill said "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." The Finns had thrown in their lot with Hitler and could not expect any further moral or material support from the Western Allies.

The Finns were in dire need of protection against a 50 times as big neighboring aggressor; and none except the Germans had help to offer. It was, according to contemporary views, the lesser of two evils. A pity that the rest of the West joined the Communists. But of course it has to be mentioned as a front of the Great Patriotic War. /Tuomas 12:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

I do not agree that the Winter War was fought at something that contemporaries considered an "Eastern Front". News coverage from that time (in English) didn't use that term. I don't know about the Polish campaign, but I wouldn't think so in that case either. The context of the Polish Campaign and the Winter War is rather the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. /Tuomas 12:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tuomas, I believe the conflict is because of the words used. Some native speaker should confirm this, but as far as I can tell the verb "to invade" does not mean "to invade and conquer" or "to invade successfuly". If so, then the invasion of Finland was factual, not attempted. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:23, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Or maybe that the invasion of (Finnish) Karelia was factual? ...however, their aim wasn't Karelia, it wasn't even Old Finland, it was all of Finland - and they were delayed. --Johan Magnus 15:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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


It does not really matter what the contempories called it, because the lable given to historic events often become the norm after the events. For example no one who fought in the Wars of the Roses called them that, No one who fought in the Great War called it "World War One" because they did not expect there to be a second one! It is quite a common name to use eg "Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, 1939", by Anita J. Prazmowska, February 2004, ISBN 0521529387. I also suspect that it was a name used during the four weeks it existed. Certainly in the Official German relply to the British decleration of war they talk about the Eastern Frontier and "if soldier falls at the front". --Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: ([[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]])
I think you must remember that Finns, like Poles, have lived in the shadow of the Soviet power and distorted Allied propaganda. One must also consider that Finns rightfully feel "proven right by history". In the 1930s, it was common to regard Finns, as Poles, as warmonging exaggerated Nationalists, aiming at expanding their country at the expense of their peaceful neighbours. And Soviet propaganda actually had some success to explain the necessity of a border adjustment, that in retrospect only would have served the purpose to make Finland easier to penetrate. Having been told that Stalin was a nice man who surely wouldn't attack unprovoked, and who surely didn't attempt to conquer Finland, distrustful Finns feel that now, after access to Soviet archives was granted, if not before, the rest of the world finally must understand the danger Finland was in. You are pushing wrong buttons, by hinting at Stalin maybe was a nice man who didn't intend to take more than the homes of 412,000 Karelians, Finland's industrial heart and power source, and cause some "minor" disturbance in Finland's food production, since the thesis of "limited" aims (much more limited than so!) was purported by Soviet propaganda both before and after the war. --Johan Magnus 16:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid both you and Tuomas see in my words more than I actually wanted to say. I'm not suggesting that Stalin might've been a nice guy; I couldn't be further from such suggestions. It was not my intention to comment on the nature of the conflict, its reasons and outcomes either. I was merely nit-picking at the phrase used in one of the earlier versions of the article and pointing at the fact that it might actually be misleading. Whether Stalin wanted to take 5% of Finland, 50% of it or 100% is completely irrelevant here. What is important is that he invaded Finland. He did succeed in invading the country but did not succeed in occupying it or forcing it into submission. That's what I wanted to say and nothing more. Sorry for the misunderstanding. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:41, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
No, no-one believes you to be a follower of Stalin. ...only that you might be too much influenced by similar propaganda. ...and, it makes a considerable difference to me, if the Red Army achieved 5%, 50% or 100% of its objectives. In the first case, which is closest to the truth, I think "failure" is close to an euphemism. :-) --Johan Magnus 17:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let's take some other similar incidents for comparison then. The Germans seized approximately 5 to 15% of Soviet territory during the Operation Barbarossa. Was it an invasion then or not? It's not a question of your beliefs, it's a question of logic. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 :-) ...Yes, that invasion was initially quite successful as the army thrust forcefully through the border; although ultimately failed as the Wehrmacht never came close to the aimed goal at Archangelsk–Astrachan. --Johan Magnus 17:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Straw Poll on name of the article

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

Please sign with #~~~~
Feel free to add more naming proposals
Please add comments in the comments section not in the Votes section.

Arguements for change and alternate names

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

Great Patriotic War

  1. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:14, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Johan Magnus 16:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oberiko 20:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


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

  • Change not properly explained yet. Gdr 11:17, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Comments

see:Dispute_resolution#Conduct a survey "Note that informal straw polls can be held at any time if there are enough participants in the discussion, but publicizing the survey can get more of the community involved and increase the weight given to the results."

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

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

So what are the pros and cons of the two options? Gdr 20:24, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
Good point, I'll add a sub-category for that. Oberiko 20:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The "arguments" section above doesn't explain why a change of name is necessary and what the relative points of the two proposals are. In particular, why is "Eastern Front" bad? Does "Great Patriotic War" imply any POV on the conflict? (Does "Eastern Front"?) Will there be edit wars over the name? What is the war called in Germany? I have read the discussion above and I am still in the dark on these points. Gdr 22:10, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Requested moves

Please see: Wikipedia:Requested moves#December 18 to GPW --Philip Baird Shearer 16:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Casulties on the eastern front (WWII)

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

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

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

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

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

Alain Fournier

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

Besides, the nature of a project like Wikipedia makes this kind of contradictions hard to avoid, and nothing to be really upset about. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but if we are lucky our efforts may result in step-by-step increasing quality. The best thing to do must be to attribute different figures to authoritative sources.

--Johan Magnus 21:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes you have a point but some figures are ridiculous. The USSR lost more Red Army troops than civilians? Like I said, some claims are too far fetched to believe.--Secret Agent Man 03:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

German POV

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

Be bold. Mikkalai 21:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no point removing 'NPOV' template from the article: a brief look at the discussion page makes it obvious that many people notice the fact the article is biased toward the pro-German POV, and denying this is pretty unhelpful. Our goal is to bring the article to the point when the desired neitrality is achieved, and this is exactly why NPOV tag is inserted. Ilvar

Soveits discouraged rape?????

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

"Violently break the racial pride of the German woman. Ravish them as booty."

Original source, please. Mikkalai 21:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Ehrenburg never encouraged violence against civilians. Anthony Beevor's book should in no way be used as a serious historical source, as his approach is clearly journalistic. Ehrenburg, on the other hand, denied authorship of the infamous "Kill" leaflet, which was likely an invention of Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry. Kazak 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM discussion

Eastern Front (WWII) → Great Patriotic War

  • Support. It was agreed in Talk:Eastern Front (WWII)#Straw Poll on name of the article that Eastern Front (WWII) would be moved to Great Patriotic War. It was carried 4 votes to 1 (or 0) (not sure if gdr was voting or commenting) and the last vote cast was more than a month ago. Please move both page and talk page. However, if the move was previously fully discussed on the article's Talk: page, it can be moved right away. please do it ASAP Philip Baird Shearer 13:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose There is no indication that the straw poll on the talk page was advertised in any way so as to solicit the opinion of community beyond a few editors of the page. And there is no strong evidence presented that "Great Patriotic War" is the name most commonly used in English to refer to this conflict. older≠wiser 13:56, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strenuous Objection. Great Patriotic War is an exclusively Russian euphemism for World War II that no English-speaking Wikipedia reader would ever search for, and anyone less than an academic, history buff, or war buff would ever be familiar with in the first place. It may be fine for the Russian language edition of Wikipedia, where Russian speakers would be familiar with the phrase (moreso than they are with the Western World War II), but as for the English language Wikipedia, keep it as it is. Certainly adding the pre-1941 information to the article is necessary, perhaps as a section entitled "Beginning of the Great Patriotic War" but the GPW was only part of the operational theatre on the Eastern Front and should not be confused as being the entire Eastern front. I doubt you would consider the efforts of the Greeks, Bulgarians and the Poles part of the GPW, but they were part of the effort on the Eastern Front. Something many scholars include when discussing the war in the East. The requested move is akin to renaming the American Civil War article to War of Northern Aggression. No one would ever look for that save a few Southerners still jaded that their side lost. —ExplorerCDT 14:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You say GPW was only part of the operational theatre on the Eastern Front and should not be confused as being the entire Eastern front. Which is precisely why I think it should be renamed to GPW. If the article is expanded to include the other conflicts then there can not be redirects from names like "Great Patriotic War" and "Russo-German War" "Soviet-German War" or "German-Soviet War" because the article would cover more than those names imply and redirects to subheadings do not work. For this reason people who edit the current page are refusing to allow the additions you are suggesting -- because they define the Eastern Front to be only the German-Soviet War. If the current article was moved to GPW then the Eastern Front could be developed along the lines of the Western Front (WWII) in the style of the North African Campaign -- brief sections with links to main articles. At the moment the coverage of the Eastern Front is as if the Western Front only included those campaigns which occurred after the Americans entered the war. Philip Baird Shearer 17:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Still not swayed. Still object, just as strenuously. Expand the article. No need to rename it to a title rank with Soviet sloganiering propaganda no one in the West uses on a regular basis, much less attends to more than required for a footnote. —ExplorerCDT 19:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • If we expand the article to be the Eastern European Theatre, then we'll end up having to link to the Soviet-German War from within it regardless, just as we link to the Polish September Campaign and Balkans Campaign. Unless you're advocating having them all on one page, which would, IMO, make it terribly long and unwieldly. Oberiko 03:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The name Eastern Front is much more common in English. -- Naive cynic 15:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • This commentis from the Talk:Eastern Front (WWII) — If it was renamed then there could be an article linking all the campaigns and wars which took place on the on the Eastern Front (EF) between 1939 and 1945. This could include a link to the Great Patriotic War (GPW) in the first section along the lines of "For the artical on the main war on the Eastern Front of World War II see Great Patriotic War" for those who thing the EF and GPW are the same thing (I suppose that is most Americans, because the US came into the war after the start of the GPW!). This way the GPW could remain clean without including details other events which happened on the Eastern Front before the start of the GPW and during the war like Yugoslavia and the Warsaw uprising. Redirects can exist from alternative names German-Russian War etc. Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, mostly for the same reasons why ExplorerCDT opposses. The article at present is about the Soviet-German War, not every action taken East of Germany. Presently, we want to isolate it from the Polish September Campaign and the Balkans Campaign, which already have their own pages. As shown above, Eastern Front, while usually meaning to the GPW, can also refer to the Eastern European Theatre as a whole and is therefore ambiguous. For my last points, GPW is, while perhaps not quite as common, is certainly a very well known term and doesn't seem to be that distant a second and does not (even in Russia) include combat outside of the Soviet-German War.
    • Agree with separating the specific conflict from the general front but is this the best name for it? Timrollpickering 16:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I'll be honost, I don't like the name Great Patriotic War. But, really, here are our choices: Soviet/Russo-German/Axis War; Eastern Front (WWII); GPW. The first is accurate, but little known, so it's automatically at last place. The second is common, but ambiguous (as we can see in this very discussion), and already a disambiguation. The third is common, non-ambiguous, but seems pretty jingoistic. Commonality is always the first deciding factor, so the first option is out. Clarity, AFAIK, is the second priority, so that puts the GPW ahead of Eastern Front (WWII). Oberiko 03:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • In which case I Support. Timrollpickering 13:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the name is POV...it buys into Stalin sending poorly armed men to be cannon fodder as being "Patriotic" and ignores that there was more to this war than Russia defending itself. The deportation of all sorts of minorities took place in the context of this war. Justifying Stalin's actions as "Great Patriotism" is really giving him too much credit. Do we really want to buy into Soviet-era doublespeak? Maybe we can call it Operation Barbarossa to make sure we address all sides (of course this still leaves out the Finns and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). Also, seems to separate it from the broader WWII context. — In addition, then do we rename the Vietnam War War Against the Americans to Save the Nation? I could see using Second Indochina War since it gives context, but the Vietnamese name gives the entire war to one side. Guettarda 16:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Barbarossa does not include any of the other major battles / phases of the Soviet-German War such as Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration or Berlin. Oberiko 16:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I know, I was just fishing for another one-sided name to make a point - I realise it was a poor analogy, especially since I am arguing for completeness. Guettarda 17:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Are you aware that it was named the Great Patriotic War because Napoleon's Russian Campaign is known as the Patriotic War in Russia? Far from justifying Stalin's actions, it is a sign of the weakness of the communist system (like the opening up churches), that they had to delve into the Tzarest past and appeal to Rodina instead of communist ideology. The trouble with any other name like the more accurate "Axis-Soviet War" is that any other name even less well know, or "Soviet-German" less accurate. As to the use of the word "war", at the moment we have an article called Pacific War (which is a misnomer because it includes the bombing of Australia, and fighting in Asia and on the Indian Ocean), but is used because it is argued that most Americans use the term. That does not make it any less part of World War II. In a slimlar way there is the Peninsular War which is part of the Napoleonic Wars. "Completeness": Do you think that the operations in Italy and Norway should be included in the Western Front article? If not why not as you are proposing that everything on the eastern front should be in one article which is already large and still skimps on many actions involving numbers of men an material which dwarf the Western Front. For example the attack on East Prussia and Poland in early 1945, or the eastern front in 1939, or the war by the Partisans in Yugoslavia etc?Philip Baird Shearer 23:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The "Great Patriotic War" refers to the Soviet Union defending itself against the onslaught of the German army and the subsequent attack on Germany/German occupied Europe by the Red Army. It does not refer to the deportation of minorites. The deportation of minorities is merely a nasty side-effect of the Great Patriotic War (if not just something that Stalin did which had nothing to do with the Great Patriotic War). As for appealing to "Rodina": Russia was not fighting for Communism; it was fighting for its survival. When urging people to conquer far-away contries to spread Communism, you must appeal to Communism and not to Rodina. When urging people to defend their country, you may appeal to Rodina, because that is what they are defending, or to Communism, because by defending Russia they are ensuring the continued influence of the Soviet Union. As an analogy, when the United States is fighting in Iraq, it is because it is "spreading freedom in the Middle East". However, if the United States is under attack by foreign enemies and you see posters urging people to fight to defend their country, that does not indicate that there's anything fundamentally wrong with Democracy, or Capitalism for that matter.
The Soviet Union didn't consider everyone who came before the Revolution to be inherently evil. The United States does not hold the view that there was something fundamentally wrong with Louis XIV of France, or Charlemagne (although a view is held by some that we are all pious and enlightened people while anyone who lived before us and ordered his people to fight bloody wars for the expansion of territory or benefited from slave labor or spent their evenings in the gladiator arena was inherently cruel and sadistic), however, if a dictator springs up somewhere in Europe, the US will object as dictators do not belong in our modern world, after the advent of democracy. So too, the Soviet Union didn't consider those who fought against France in the Napoleonic wars to be enemies of Communism. They were heroes and defenders of the Russian people, the people who would a century later form the Soviet Union. In World War II, when Russia again had to defend itself against an enemy who threatened to completely annihilate it, the government may well call it the "Great Patriotic War" to bring back such feelings of patriotism without it being "a sign of the weakness of the communist system". (And by the way, Communism and Atheism are seperate things. If the United States takes "under G-d" out of the pledge of allegiance, that won't be a sign of the weakness of the American system.)
By the way, why must an article have the most widely known name? An article should have the most technically correct name. A redirect can then be set up from the most widely know one. 69.208.36.150
  • Oppose. I agree with renaming this article so that a proper overview of the Eastern Front can be written in its place, but I oppose renaming it to "Great Patriotic War", as this is very one-sided. Axis-Soviet War or German-Soviet War would be better names. Popularity is not the only thing that we take into account when picking a name for an article: if it were we would have to call the article "Eastern Front". Gdr 17:04, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
Personally I do not mind what it is renamed too because with any name redirects will be possible. I just happen to to think that GPW is the best of a bad bunch. But it would worse not to move the article to a any new name. Philip Baird Shearer 23:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But why is it the best of a bad bunch? You've failed to explain this. GPW is popular, but not neutral. The alternatives are neutral but not popular. I think that neutrality is a more important principle for Wikipedia than matching popular usage. Gdr 11:06, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
Because none of them are well known. There are two other alternatives "Axis-Soviet War" "German-Soviet War". As I said above "Personally I do not mind what it is renamed too because with any name redirects will be possible." Of those two the former is more accurate than the latter but is less well known and the latter is less often used than GPW. Please explain why you think that GPW is not neutral? After all it was the great war of World War II and both sides fought with patriotism (more so than for ideology).
  • Agree. "East(ern) Front" is an ambiguous name, and Great Patriotic War, even if one-sided, is the most commonly used unambiguous name in English. The name may be jingoistic, but it's what the war is called. "German-Soviet" or "Axis-Soviet" may be precise, but they are not at all commonly used. AFAIK it's just the Ostfront in German, which does not clearly identify the war. Barbarossa is just as one-sided as GPW, and refers only to one operation; it would be like calling the whole of 1944–45 in the West "Operation Overlord". I haven't heard any other good alternatives. (Google test: "Great Patriotic War", ca. 70,000 hits; "German-Soviet War", ca. 1,000 hits; "Axis-Soviet War", exactly one hit.) —Tkinias 22:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've never heard of "The Great Patriotic War," so I'll assume that the majority of other wikipedians haven't either. SECProto 04:40, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Same here, but I have repeatedly heard of the 'eastern front'. I would argue that 'Eastern Front (WWII)' isn't particularly ambiguous. Also, it gets about 100,000 hits, as does 'Eastern Front (World War II). Seems like there has got to be other alternative resolutions of the issues referred to by 'Philip Baird Shearer 17:21, 17 Dec 2004' (which seem to be at least in part contradicted by 'Timrollpickering]] 16:47, 17 Dec 2004'. Niteowlneils 05:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Great Patriotic War is POV (Soviet), and the existing title is perfectly adequate, and probably more familiar/understandable to the average reader. Rd232 20:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm yet another English speaker who has always heard this war referred to as the Eastern Front of WWII. And I would certainly expect NPOV concerns if someone entered "Eastern Front (WWII)" and was redirected to "The Great Patriotic War." It makes a great deal of sense that Russians would call the war something different, but they are a minority of English speakers, and I see no reason why their name for the war should be regarded as more correct. (Google gets a roughly even number of hits for either term, depending on how you parse "Eastern Front WWII", but while general WWII history sites are responsible for most of the Eastern Front hits, most of the "Great Patriotic War" hits are at Russian sites or sites devoted to Russian history.) --LostLeviathan 21:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So on which front was the Polish campaign of 1939 fought? On which front was the Partisan conflict in Yugoslavia fought. On which front was the Continuation War fought? Did you read the comment above?:
  • Yes, I read it, but I find it unconvincing in light of overwhelming popular usage; a disambiguation heading can deal with those. --LostLeviathan 00:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If it was renamed then there could be an article linking all the campaigns and wars which took place on the on the Eastern Front (EF) between 1939 and 1945. This could include a link to the Great Patriotic War (GPW) in the first section along the lines of "For the artical on the main war on the Eastern Front of World War II see Great Patriotic War"
This would also alow "yet another English speaker" to know that the Russians call it this (and the reason why they do see Patriotic War). If the article is expanded to include all the conflicts on the Eastern Front then the redirects like Great Patriotic War will be wrong. As I said above GPW is not a perect name but it is the best of a bad bunch (see what Oberiko wrote on the 18th for the details of why this is). Philip Baird Shearer 23:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It can be mentioned in the first paragraph that the Russians call it (or some specific part of it) the Great Patriotic War. I still don't think the name of the article should be changed. --LostLeviathan 00:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Eastern Front starts in 1939.
"Eastern Front" + 1939 = 44,000 hits
"Eastern Front" + Soviet = 67,000 hits
"Great Patriotic War" = 59,000 hits
So claims that GPW is an unknown term is ridiculous.
The article clearly says it is Soviet-german conflict, hence the name is correct.
"Eastern Front" is yet to be written. Mikkalai 05:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • First off, whichever you call it, most sites say that the war began in 1941. Second, your first search limits the search to pages that specifically mention the year 1939. If you do that with "Great Patriotic War", the results are devastating:
"Great Patriotic War" + 1939 = 10,700 hits
Using 1941 for comparison:
"Eastern Front" + 1941 = 61,600 hits
"Great Patriotic War" + 1941 = 25,600 hits
And, as I mentioned in my previous post, the bulk of the Great Patriotic War results on Google appear to be from Russian sites and sites dedicated specifically to Russian history. I maintain that "Eastern Front" is the more common term in the English-speaking world, as well as being better NPOV. --LostLeviathan 09:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. POV – ABCD 02:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. POV and "Eastern Front" is more common. Fighting in the Balkans and in Poland is not generally known as the "Eastern Front," in any event. john k 20:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The Great Patriotic War is the name that correctly points out that importance of the so-called "Eastern Front" for both Russians and Germans, as well as for the final outcome of the WWII, cannot even be compared with warfare somewhere in Africa or in Australia. I believe it is for the Russian people to decide how events of their history should be called. For us in Moscow it is by no means the "Eastern front", it is actually the "Western front". The term "Eastern Front" is used in European countries east of Germany to refer to the war with Japan. Thus, the term "Eastern Front", as applied to the Soviet-German war, seems to be arbitrary and partisan. Ghirlandajo 6:52, 23 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • Support. I believe the last thing anyone can blame me for would be a pro-Soviet stance, but the war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany is in importance and numbers more than motivating an article of its own, and for that what this article covers The Great Patriotic War is the most appropriate title. The English language habit not to make any clear distinction between "the Eastern Front" and the 1941-1945 Russo-German war to me signifies an ignorance that is far below the appropriate level for any encyclopedia. Remember, we are discussing only the title of the page. Redirects and article introduction still gives plenty of ways to avoid misunderstandings. /Tuomas 20:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Eastern Front" is by far the most common usage for this very important part of WWII in English. Explanations of the historical context(s) of The Great Patriotic War, the Winter War, the Polish conflicts in the larger theatre -- and any other wars, campaigns and/or political actions or developments -- can be prominently linked at the beginning, or the end, or within the body of this article on the Eastern Front. Further, I think the Russian, Finnish and Polish versions of Wikipedia should choose to decide what they want to do with their version (and views) of this subject as they wish. Cheers, Madmagic 03:17, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
The article is already at 32K and that is with the time-line stripped out. There are major sections of the Axis-Soviet war overview missing for example late 44 throught the end of the war (with the exeption of the Battle of Berlin). Where for example is the sections on Hungary (with the shenanigans of Otto Skorzeny, the siege of Pest and then Buda), Czechoslovakia and Austria? Another example: the whole of the fall of Sevastopol is covered by "except Sevastopol, which held out until 3 July 1942" and its recapture "and Sevastopol in May". So where is the room for the other conflicts in this page like this example, the defence of Prague by the elements of the Russian Liberation Army, which is part of the Eastern Front but not directly part of the Axis-Soviet War? Philip Baird Shearer 00:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. "Eastern Front" can also refer to pre-June 1941 campaigns. A better title than "Great Patriotic War" would be "Axis-Soviet War", though. Kazak 02:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Belorussian or Byelorussian Front

Should the link be to "Belorussian Front" or "Byelorussian Front"? As this subject came up on the "Battle of Berlin" page and it effects this one, please see the discussion under Talk:3rd Byelorussian Front#Belorussian or Byelorussian Philip Baird Shearer 19:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Far Eastern Front

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

Victor Suvorov

I have heard mention , do not remember where, that Suvorov believed Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union was a pre-emtive strike as the huge Soviet build up was a prelude to Stalin's invasion of the west. Cin anyone elucidate further. I do realize that many Russians, esp ex-KGB types are trying t discredit Suvorov by saying that he was sowing disinformation by being a false defector. --Tomtom 16:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Icebreaker (Suvorov). Some time ago you could also have seen it in Operation Barbarossa (only ref to "Icebreaker" is left there now, without going into detail). Mikkalai 23:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Given the Wehrmacht's successes in 1940, the Franco-British failure, and the Red Army's bad record from the Winter War, Hitler would have attacked eastwards anyway. In his views, a fight on life and death with the ("Jewish"-) Communist Slavs was unavoidable. If we are to believe Suvorov, maybe the decission to launch Operation Barbarossa in 1941 seems more rational, but that's all. ...and Hitler wasn't precisely rational anyway. But he had reasons to believe that the Western Europeans would join in to crush the Bolsheviks. That was one error of his. And he had become overconfident in the superiority of his forces. That's of course another fatal error, although in 1941 many Western analysists estimated the Wehrmacht's superiority similarly exaggerated as did Hitler.
It all boils down to personal beliefs and convictions. Do you want to believe that Stalin aimed at the World Revolution waiting passively while the war went on in the West until the armies were worn out and his forces could arrive as liberators, or do you want to believe that Stalin in fact aimed at nothing but the territory of the old Russian Empire, that chiefly was acquired in 1940? You can interpret our knowledge on the Soviet Union to fit both convictions. --Johan Magnus 18:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not everyone believe in Stalin's speech on Aug 19, 1939, but those who do can for instance read:
Now let us consider the second possibility, a German victory. Some think that this would confront us with a serious danger. There is some truth in this, but it would be a mistake to regard the danger as so close at hand or as great as has been proposed.
If Germany should prove to be victorious, she will leave the war too weakened to start a war with the USSR within a decade at least. She will have to supervise the occupation of France and England and [...]
In addition, a victorious Germany will have vast territories; the exploitation of those [...] will also absorb Germany during several decades.
Obviously, this Germany will be too busy elsewhere to turn against us.
--Johan Magnus 23:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Phases of the war

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

Oberiko you might like to look at Talk:Prague Offensive --Philip Baird Shearer 12:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added a few more subheadings to make the structure clear. The phases of the war are pretty clear, but I don't think there are commonly-accepted names in English for them (or even for many of the battles). I used this structure, with corresponding main articles:

  1. Operation Barbarossa (June to September 1941)
  2. Operation Typhoon and Battle of Rostov (1941) (September to December 1941)
  3. Soviet counter-offensive: Battle of Moscow, Second Battle of Kharkov (December 1941 to May 1942)
  4. Battle of Voronezh, Battle of the Caucasus, Battle of Stalingrad (May to November 1942)
  5. Battle of Stalingrad, Operation Saturn, Second Rzhev-Sychevka offensive, Third Battle of Kharkov (November 1942 to June 1943) (it would be nice to have a summary article of this phase of the war)
  6. Battle of Kursk (July 1943 to August 1943)
  7. Recapture of the Ukraine (August 1943 to May 1944) -- no main article
  8. Operation Bagration (June 1944 to December 1944) -- no article on Lvov-Sandomierz operation
  9. Soviet advance into Eastern Europe: Vistula-Oder offensive (January 1945 to March 1945) -- no article on advance into SE Europe
  10. Battle of Berlin (April 1945)

My personal preference is to have geographical names for campaigns and battles rather than operation names, because (1) the operation codenames don't tell you where or when something happened; and (2) an operation was planned and exeucted by one side so a description of it tends to make the article include only one side of events. Hence I think an article name like Battle of Belorussia (1944) would be better than Operation Bagration, and Second Rzhev-Sychevka offensive better than Operation Mars. Popular usage might mean we are stuck with some of these, but I note that on the western front Operation Overlord redirects to Battle of Normandy so maybe there is hope. Gdr 19:25, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I thought that there was an operation called From the Vistula to the Oder. Not an elegant name but that how it is called. Andries 20:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Straw Poll On Requested moves

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

Maps

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

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

I'm no expert on the battles, but the maps are very clear and attractive. If you're going to be doing any updates, would you consider adding a dotted line indicating the pre-partition borders of Poland to the first map? Good job. —Michael Z. 2005-03-21 19:48 Z
I agree that the maps are very readable. May I ask what program you use to make them? Oberiko 21:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Drawn in OmniGraffle, using the GIMP for flood-filling and GraphicConverter for PNG compression. I would prefer not to add the 1939 Polish frontier. I understand that you might want to know where it was, but it played no part in the 1941–1945 war so I think it would be best to show it in another article. You can see several maps in the Polish September Campaign article showing the 1939 frontiers. Gdr 21:23, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
You, Gdr, have earned quite some respect with your additions and improvements. With regard to the relevance of the old Polish-German border to the opening of hostilities in June 1941, I would however like to disagree with you:
An important point in the pre-war negotiations was a Soviet interest in using Polish territory as an advanced defence zone. It is possible that the Blitzkrieg advance would have been initially equally successful, also if the Wehrmacht had started behind the Polish corridor (a build-up in East Prussia had however reasonably been a too obvious warningsignal), but the change of preconditions, that the occupation of Poland resulted in, can hardly be deemed irrelevant.
Regards!
--Johan Magnus 19:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I take your point. And in 1945 Silesia is important too. So I will think about it. Gdr 14:26, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Industrial Production

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

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

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

All the nummbers are all wrong i have the exact nummbers here

The nummber of Tanks AND Self-Propeeled guns by the USSR 1941--->6590 1942----->24446 1943---->24089 1944------>28963 1945---->15400

The nummber of Tanks and only Tanks and nothing but Tanks by the Germans 1941---->5200 1942----->9300

The Nummber of Tanks AND Self-Propelled Guns By the Germans 1943--->19800 1944-------->27300 1945---?

As anyone can see the Soviets didnt out produce the Nazies by much when it came to tanks and self-propelled guns

Also, the Germans produced many times more in the Heavy Industry then the Soviets

COAL

Germany 1941--->315.5 tonnes 1942---->317.9 tonnes 1943---->340.4 tonnes 1944---->347.6 tonnes 1945---->?

USSR 1941---> 151.4 tonnes 1942---> 75.5 1943---> 93.1 tonnes 1944---> 121.5 tonnes 1945---> 149.3 tonnes

STEEL

Germany

1941---> 28.2 tonnes 1942----> 28.7 tonnes 1943----> 30.6 tonnes 1944-----> 25.8 tonnes 1945---->?

USSR

1941---> 17.9 tonnes 1942----> 8.1 tonnes 1943--->8.5 tonnes 1944----> 10.9 tonnes 1945--->12.3 tonnes


ALUMINIUM

Germany

1941---> 233.6 tonnes 1942---->264.0 tonnes 1943---> 250.0 tonnes 1944--->245.3 tonnes 1945--->?

USSR

1941--->? 1942----> 51.7 tonnes 1943----> 62.3 tonnes 1944----> 82.7 tonnes 1945---> 86.3 tonnes

OIL

Germany

1941---> 5.7 tonnes 1942----> 6.6 tonnes 1943---> 7.6 tonnes 1944---> 5.5 tonnes 1945---> 1.3 tonnes

USSR

1941---> 33.0 tonnes 1942----> 22.0 tonnes 1943---> 18.0 tonnes 1944---> 18.2 tonnes 1945---> 19.4 tonnes


All nummbers take from Russia's War by Richard Overy page 155

The nummbers clearly speak for them selves that the Soviets used what they hade much more efficiently then the nazis.


Deng 2005-12-19 18.30 CET

Controversies

In tidying up the page, I cut some controversies on the grounds that (1) the issues aren't at all clear-cut; and (2) there isn't the space in a high-level overview article like this to go into controversies: it's better to just say what happened and link to more detailed articles. In particular, I cut:

  1. Discussion about whether it was a mistake not to advance on Moscow in August 1941. (Even if Moscow had fallen historian differ as to whether Germany could have won the war.) This probably deserves its own article.
  2. Discussion about whether the Soviets deliberately avoided relieving the Warsaw Uprising in August 1944. (Some historians think that callous indifference combined with stiff German resistance were the culprits, not a deliberate policy.) This already has its own article: Lack of outside support in the Warsaw Uprising.

Gdr 19:11, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

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

Indeed. The fact is mentioned, and there's a link to the Warsaw Uprising article, which covers the subject in much greater detail than we can possibly go into here. Gdr 10:15, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
Exactly due to the reasons given above by Gdr, I reverted the change by CristianChirita. I do not dispute the factual accuracy. It's just that when making essential edits, please make sure you read the full article. Irpen 20:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Ok :-)CristianChirita 21:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Maybe we don't need to consider the degree of formality that much for what we put in disambiguation parentheses? --Johan Magnus 09:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that this is such, and moved it. IIRC, there's a naming convention that says we should expand acronyms in those places. --Joy [shallot] 02:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now I saw that it was just that one (EF/WWI) that was expanded fully... but I moved the rest to follow suit now that I was at it. You guys figure it out which is best in the long run, just keep it consistent. --Joy [shallot] 02:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Soviet contribution obscured

The following piece removed form the recent addition:

; this decisive contribution to winning WW2 in Europe was long obscured in the Western Bloc due to Cold War conditions.

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

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

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

All the protagonists

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renaming

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

  • The BBC uses Soviet-German War [3].
  • Russo-German War is marginally more popular on Google, but it's ambiguous with other Russo-German wars and ignores the participation of the non-Russian republics.
  • Axis-Soviet War is rare on Google, but it indicates the participation of Italy, Hungary, and Rumania.
  • Other names?

Gdr 22:59, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

I would avoid Axis-Soviet War since Japan had a non-aggression treaty with Russia, meaning it wasn't really the Axis who were at war with the Soviets. Soviet-German war seems to me to be the most accurate to me.
Could I recommed that you use the name "Eastern European Theatre of World War II" for an article on all combat east of Germany? It would be quite unambigious and line up with our other "...Theatre of World War II" articles and categories. Oberiko 00:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

is this goerbel's work?!

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

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


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

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


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

216.174.134.92 04:26, 29 October 2005


Lets face the truth: the article is VERY biased, probably not in the facts themselves, but rather in what facts made it to the text, accenting Red Army's failures and Wehrmacht successes, and in the general lingo used. Examples are virtually everywhere; let's take just one and break it down.

"After two weeks hard fighting, the 1st Panzer managed to escape the pocket, suffering only light to moderate casualties." (about Kamenets-Podolsky Pocket). A) I'm not entirely sure that ANY details should be given about this operation, rather than (probably) mere mentioning of it: from the global perspective the Germans just kept rolling back and if another smaller-scale Stalingrad did _not_ happen, this is not a good enough reason to put it on the main page, describing the course of the war. For instance, not a single case of Russians escaping the pockets in the first year of war is mentioned despite numerous instances of it, and probably justifyibly so, since the stess on the general retreat and mass surrender in the pockets that were not broken thru is more correct on this level of description. When an (unsuccessful) siege of Leningrad is just barely mentioned ("Thus began the 900-day Siege of Leningrad"), this kind of detailization about a much smaller event sounds somewhat inappropriate.

B) Even if mentioning this operation, one should note that in fact it resulted in 1st Panzer ceasing to exist as a panzer army per ce as virtually all the tanks were lost. Mentioning the mere fact of escape "with light and moderate casualities" is misleading, making the reader think that after some fighting they've just escaped and regrouped, which is clearly not true.

C) The phrasing itself, "after hard fighting" <...> "suffering only light to moderate casualties" sounds to me more like a piece of a war-time propaganda, than a serious historical statement.

Another example:

"The genocidal death toll was attributed to several factors, including brutal mistreatment of POWs and captured partisans by both sides, multiple atrocities by the Germans and the Soviets against the civilian population <...> and Joseph Stalin's draconian policies<..>" This statement more or less puts an equal sign between the Nazis and Soviets, with an extra accent on Stalin. I don't think anything in a sane mind can compare whatever happened with German POWs in Russia or what was done by the Soviet soldiers in Germany to the Nazis policy of systematic extermination of millions of Jews and Soviet POWs in the death camps. Thus this statement is misleading at best.

All in all, I would say that this article doesn't conform to the neutral POV standards rather leaning toward a right-wing german one

ivar 05:32, 17 December 2005


Valid point. This needs a lot fo work to bring it up to current standards. DMorpheus 16:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Industrial output section

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

However the pre - last sentense is doubtfull,many experts considered T-34 is the best tank of World War II).

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

Stalins speech

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

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

Something like that would be nice to see


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

Who did what list if possible

I would like to see a list of who did what

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Mobilized forces

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

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

Northern Front 44,45

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