Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive 6

Supreme Commanders

Why are Stalin and Hitler gone from the list of commanders? With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Operations

I'm quite surprised that the various operations are not titled by the German names or by the Russian names. In fact the Soviet list runs to some 70+ operations, and I have never seen a full Wehrmacht list. It htis another one of these Wikipedian "close enough is good enough" approaches that suggests the commonly used reference is better then the actual historical one?
With the exception of Barbarossa, not one of these is an actual operation! There were for example several Soviet offensive operations in the winter of 1941, but not one 'counter-offensive' Some are just references to season. There was no 'End of war' operation.

   * 3.1 Operation Barbarossa: Summer 1941

   * 3.2 Moscow and Rostov: Autumn 1941

   * 3.3 Soviet counter-offensive: Winter 1941

   * 3.4 Don, Volga, and Caucasus: Summer 1942

   * 3.5 Stalingrad: Winter 1942

   * 3.6 Kursk: Summer 1943

   * 3.7 Autumn and Winter 1943

   * 3.8 Summer 1944

   * 3.9 Autumn 1944

   * 3.10 January-March 1945

   * 3.11 End of War: April–May 1945

   * 3.12 Manchuria: August 1945

Poor effort despite all the operations having been provided in this very discussion page!--Mrg3105 (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Commanders

What is the accepted criteria for listing significant commanders?--Mrg3105 (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

which commanders get listed in the box?

Currently this is a bit of a mess. If the article itself is a general summation of the entirety of the Theatre-wide conflict, then the people which were important to its prosecution are likely to be the very top echelon personalities. Aside from Hitler and Stalin, these would be the most senior officers such as Chiefs of Staff and those commanding at least the Army Groups/Panzergruppen and Luftflotten, and the Soviet Strategic Directions and their Fronts. I would like to propose that all the Army commanders would be relegated tot he Campaign articles (still to be written).--mrg3105mrg3105 12:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Chuikov should be listed, he is certainly more significant than some of those who do get a mention; Rodimtsev is also (quite rightly) mentioned, but he was under Chuikov's overall command at Stalingrad. 92.227.130.236 (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Once more from the top please

Hello gentlemen. It is my sincere hope that we will all behave as such while we progress in the project to document the Eastern Front in treater detail.

For my firs proposal I would like to suggest that the scope of the subject is too great to be covered in one article. The result is that the current article structure and contend do no justice to any part by trying to cover everything.

It is my suggestion that the article be restructured as follows:

Firstly this is a big subject and article, and it seems to me it deserves and Introduction.
Above all the conflict was made by the personalities of Hitler and Stalin more so then their state ideologies (thought they both used them to get to the top).
Next, I think that 'forces' needs to be replaced by Preparations, or lack there of. It seems to me that ideologies were very much used for preparing and building up morale of the population adn the armed forces, including use of propaganda.
Results are really something that belongs to the end to prevent a 'spoiler' effect.
I would suggest that the Overview and the Background sections be combined into one section called 'The road to war'. Again, this is to avoid the spoiler effect, and to reduce the size of the article by redirecting to pre-1941 articles that deal with these events in greater detail.
Next I would suggest that the sections 'Occupation and repression' and 'Industrial output' be located between the and of the First Period and the start of the Second Period.This is where the two really begin, and much of what was done in the first period of the war in respect of these two subjects affected the rest of the conduct of military operations. It seems to me that the later two 'Acts' can not be understood without the appropriate 'Interlude' that sets the scene for the middle and the last 'Acts' of the war.
Strictly speaking the 'August storm' was not an Eastern Front operation, but a very short Far Eastern Campaign. It was conducted by troops redeployed from European Theatre, and needs to be in the See also section. In may ways this is no different to the British and US troops who fought first in the North African Campaign, and then were redeployed to other Theatres and Campaigns.

Returning to the military operations, the First Period was essentially defined by operations of the Wehrmacht. It seems to me then that the appropriate thing to do is to reflect this in its structure.

Introduction
1 The road to war
2 Leadership

2.1 Adolf Hitler

2.11 The Nazis, field marshals and generals

2.2 Joseph Stalin

2.21 The Communists, marshals and generals

2.3 Axis and allied leadership

2.4 United Kingdom, and United States

2.5 Preparations.

2.6 Ideologies and propaganda.

3 Conduct of operations

4 First period

4.1 Operation Barbarossa: Summer 1941

Summer-Autumn Campaign (Russian: Летне-осенняя кампания 1941 г.) (22 June - 4 December 1941)

4.2 Northern Campaign - objective Leningrad

4.3 Campaign in Belorussia - objective Smolensk

4.4 Campaign in Russia - objective Moscow (Operation Taifun)

4.5 Campaign in the Ukraine - objective Kiev

Winter Campaign of 1941-42 (Russian: Зимняя кампания 1941/42 г.) (5 December 1941 - 30 April 1942)

4.6 Volga Campaign - objective Baku

Summer-Autumn Campaign (Russian: Летне-осенняя кампания 1942 г.) (1 May - 18 November 1942)

5 Occupation and repression
6 Industrial output
7 Second Period

Winter Campaign of 1942-43 (Russian: Зимняя кампания 1942-1943 гг.) (19 November 1942 - 3 March 1943)

7.1 Operation Citadel

Summer-Autumn Campaign of 1943 (Russian: Летне-осенняя кампания 1943 г.) (1 July - 31 December 1943)

8 Third Period

Winter-Spring Campaign (Russian: Зимне-весенняя кампания 1944 г.) (1 January - 31 May 1944)

Summer-Autumn Campaign of 1944 (Russian: Летне-осенняя кампания 1944 г.) (1 June - 31 December 1944)

Campaign in Europe during 1945 (Russian: Кампания в Европе 1945 г.) (1 January - 9 May 1945)

9 Outcomes
10 Casualties of the war
11 See also
Manchuria: August 1945
12 Notes

12.1 References

13 Bibliography
14 External links
How does all this sound?--mrg3105mrg3105 13:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Великая Отечественная война

Hi Bogdan. It seems to e that although the bulk of the fighting did take place in European part of the USSR and Eastern Europe, by virtue of the operations against Finland and in the Arctic, incursion into Iran, and the war with Japan the name of the Great Patriotic War can not be applied selectively to what has become known as the Eastern Front. --mrg3105mrg3105 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Then... "восточный фронт/театр"? I figure, if the German translation belongs there, then we cannot exclude the Russian. Bogdan ^що? 00:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no such concept either during the Great Patriotic War or during the Cold War in the Soviet Union, and I doubt you will be able to find a serious source of reference to it. Please have a look here for explanation, and maybe the link needs to be explicitly inserted into the article although it was not intended to deal with the Second World War as such. I have also enlarged the theatre article, and there is also a separate article here that you may want to expand.--mrg3105mrg3105 01:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Either way I think 'Великая oтечественная война' is appropriate here. Iran and Finland are not even mentioned, while the small Japan part clearly states that it was not part of Eastern Front operations. Bogdan ^що? 01:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it belongs in the Second World War article. The "small Japan part" was not so small, and there were other considerations to the GPW like the industrial output of the four relocation areas, the lend-lease supplies, etc. I think you can safely insert the Russian name in the Second World War article.--mrg3105mrg3105 01:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems logical to me, but I'm sure that problems would later arise. How about we simply rid both this, and the World War II article of foreign names? Bogdan ^що? 01:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would problems arise? I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "simply rid both this, and the World War II article of foreign names"? Do you mean everything not English? It seems to me that "Великая Отечественная война" has a very logical reason for being in the Second World War article. It is the name for the conflict given to the conflict by a participant which is different to the common English name. It would have to be translated as the "Great Patriotic War", and transliterated of course. There are oodles of sources to substantiate this, including from English language sources, so it seems fairly unchallengeable to me. I would say that you can actually do a larger edit and insert the section on "Names of the war" to give the reader an idea of how different participants named it. For example the "Second World War" is the British Commonwealth usage. What did the Japanese call it? I never asked this question before.--mrg3105mrg3105 02:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for framework

Can I suggest the following for a skeleton framework for this article?

• Background
• Course of the conflict
  • German invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa - Operation Typhoon : Jun 22 - 4 Dec 1941)
  • The first Soviet counter offensive (Operation Typhoon - Second Battle of Kharkov : 5 Dec 1941 - 11 May 1942)
  • The second German offensive (Second Battle of Kharkov - Operation Uranus : 12 May - 18 Nov 1942)
  • The second Soviet counter offensive (Operation Uranus - Kursk : 19 Nov 1942 - 3 Jul 1943)
  • The third German offensive and the Soviet counter-offensive (Kursk - Operation Bagration : 4 Jul 1943 - 21 Jun 1944)
  • The Soviet push to Germany (Operation Bagration - Vistula-Oder Offensive : 22 Jun 1944 - 11 Jan 1945)
  • The Soviet invasion of Germany (Vistula-Oder Offensive - Battle of Berlin / Prague: 12 Jan 1945 - 11 May 1945)
• Aftermath
• Analysis (production etc., basically the why and how part)

For reasons specified here we shouldn't go beyond seven headings. IMO, I think these are the most logical major phases of the war with that in mind. Also, keep in mind that the dates are rough estimates, so things can spill over between the dates. Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would still favour the three periods as major divisions. What happened within them is another story.--mrg3105mrg3105 23:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think three is enough major headers for the war; to me it seems like an unnecessary grouping. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't really see the major events / changes that segregate them. Oberiko (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The three periods used by Glantz are derived from operational periodisation of the Eastern Front. What that means is that the middle period defines the loss of initiative by Wehrmacht and its securing by the Red Army. The periodisation used in the Soviet Union had five periods:

• Beginning of the war and invasion (1st Sep 39 - 21 June 41)
• Widening of the front and the realisation fo failure of Blitzkrieg (22 June 41 - 18 Nov 42)
• Fundamental change in the conduct of operations and defeat of Wehrmacht's strategic objectives (19 Nov 42 - 31 Dec 43)
• Defeat of Wehrmacht and liberation of Soviet and European territories from German occupation (1 Jan 44 - 9 May 45)
• Defeat of Japan (9 May 45 - 2 Sep 45)

The 'fundamental change' is actually the securing of strategic initiative I mentioned above. It is a vital part of understanding the progress of war in the East--mrg3105mrg3105 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain the reasoning for a cut-off being at 1 Jan 44? I don't see any major events, at least none close to the scale of Bagration or Vistula-Oder, occurring at that point. Oberiko (talk)

If you look here you will see that this was marked by the commencement of the Winter-spring campaign of 1944.

The three periods are really Theatre divisors. The campaigns are strategic events, while the operations are either strategic (multi-Front such as "Bagration") or operational (Frontal) level events. --mrg3105mrg3105 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, don't quite follow. What theatres do these three periods refer to? Period one seems to be within the USSR, the other two? Oh, and why is Japan mentioned here; the Soviet conflicts against it aren't part of this campaign / theatre. Oberiko (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There was only one Theatre, European. However theatre campaigns are necessarily governed by weather, and therefore the really correct way to refer to campaigns is by their seasonal duration, while the strategic operations that form them are referred to by the areas where they take place. The actions in the Theatre all take place in Europe since Europe (by current definition) is defined by the Urals and the Caucasus although Germans though they were in Asia when they got to Crimea and the Don (because of the camels). The inclusion of the Far Eastern campaign is a bit out of place. Its there primarily because the troops largely came from the European Theatre, but I would agree that it needs to be in the Pacific Theatre.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so I'm still not understanding the reason for the periods. Can you define what each period represents individually? Oberiko (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• First period - Red Army on the back foot fending off Wehrmacht's offensives (Glantz - Germany Holds the Strategic Initiative)
• Second period - struggle for initiative and its securing by the Red Army (Glantz - A Period of Transition)
• Third period - pursuit of complete victory (Glantz - The Soviet Union Holds the Strategic Initiative)--mrg3105mrg3105 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened in January 44 that gave the Soviets strategic initiative that they didn't have in November 43? Near as I can tell, the Soviet's held almost complete strategic domination following Citadel. Oberiko (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko, its not always useful to reinvent the wheel :o), lets stay with the existing structure for the campaigns for now.

However, looking at the article I see a somewhat confusing logical sequence of the sections

1 Forces
2 Ideologies
3 Results
4 Background
5 Conduct of operations
6 First period
7 Second Period
8 Third Period
9 Leadership
10 Occupation and repression
11 Industrial output
12 Casualties

It seems to me that the following is more logical:

1 Leadership (war of personalities as much as countries, effect on societies ?; Main article: Hitler and Stalin)
2 Ideologies (war of national politico-economic ideological systems;Main article: Nazism and Communism)
3 Background (IMHO needs to be renamed 'Preparations', including the preemptive attack theory)
4 Forces (needs to be expanded to: leadership, training, doctrine, equipment, dispositions, OOBs; Main article: Blitzkrieg, German general, Soviet Marshals, infantry warfare, artillery warfare, armoured warfare, aerial warfare)
5 Conduct of operations (Main article: Army Groups (1941) and Soviet Fronts (1941))
6 First period (German initial success and near victory;Main article: Siege of Leningrad, Defense of Moscow, Campaigns in Ukraine)
7 Industrial output (Soviet evacuation and outproducing of Germany + Lend Lease;Main article: Evacuation of Soviet industry, German industry, Soviet industry rebuilt, Lend Lease)
8 Second Period (struggle to gain strategic initiative;Main article: stalemate at Leningrad, Kursk bulge, Stalingrad)
9 Occupation, repression and resistance (Occupied territories, repression and partisan warfare; Main article:Effect on different populations, Holocaust, Partisans)
10 Third Period (liberation of Soviet territory, conquest of former Axis; Main article:Warsaw uprising, Finland, Bulgaria, Romania changing sides)
11 Human and economic cost of war (Military, civilian, loss of military equipment, loss of civilian infrastructure, damage to cities and economies; Main article: How casualties are calculated?)
12 Results (Soviet Union as a super-power, domination of Eastern Europe, changed relationships with Western Allies, time taken for Soviet Union to rebuild and recover from the war, effect on divided Germany; Main article: ?)

Comments, criticisms?--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 07:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still against these periods. From my reading, it's mostly a Soviet way of categorizing the war. (i.e., it appears primarily in Soviet written history books, but not German or western). Seems to violate neutrality in my opinion.

Second, this is an encyclopaedia article, not a book. I think you're trying to cram a bit to much into this and will definitely run into size issues. Oberiko (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason there is no periodisation in German and Western books, is because there is no systematic periodisation in English language historiography. This does not violate neutrality since I can not invent something that is not there. There are good reasons for the three periods, and we can discuss them if you are really in need of this discussion, but I suggest doing it elsewhere.

I am well aware this is an encyclopaedia. This means that the intent is to cover everything. If a subject needs more then three average-sized paragraphs, then there is a good chance it needs an article of its own, and what should be left is a sentence that points to the article. Eastern Front is a global article. This means that discussion of anything in it should be limited to pretty much what one would see on Earth from orbit. Conceptually speaking the 12 major sections represent the "oceans and continents", nothing more. The sub-sections are the green and brown areas, seas, major islands. I wouldn't worry about size at this stage. I'm still working on other issues, but please start editing/writing, and we can discuss where to delimit the content and start new articles as we go.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 14:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:4SSNL-PGDA1.jpg

Image:4SSNL-PGDA1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarian Casualties after 1944

Somebody keeps reverting the number of bulgarian casualties (suffered after Bulgaria joined the Anti-Nazi coalition in September 1944) to 10 000; please stop doing it, especially without a citated source; where did you find it? Official casualties are stated ~37 000 men, but since I'm citing from memory and I couldn't find the sorce I'm using the figure listed at [1] - 31 922. Until somebody finds a better source, please refrain from reverting to the inaccurate number of 10 000 KIA/MIA. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.68.215 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The table clearly lists where the numbers come from the number 2 "Vadim Erlikman, Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke: spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1; Mark Axworthy, Third Axis Fourth Ally. Arms and Armour 1995, p. 216. ISBN 1-85409-267-7" Studypaper55 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Preparing for war

I'd like add this to the article. Its inescapable that events of 1939-40 were precursors to the war, and the fact that the Finns called the 1941-44 Continuation War is really a good indicator that if they though it one war with a pause, it seems everyone did. The massive reorganisation and re-equipment that took place in USSR is a testament to this--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Allid combatants on eastern front

I added another allied combatants to infobox. Previously these forces were listed only under footnote, which is completely ridiculous, compared to the effort eastern european countries put to fight nazism. Polish armed forces in the east numbered 400 000 at the end of war, and Yugoslavian partisans under Tito pretty much liberated their country by themselves. Articles on Western Front and Italian campaign list all fighting allied countries, even if their effort was much more smaller in some cases (Brazil, Netherlands).Rudi Maxer (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that infobox also list all axis combatants, so i don't know who really had the problem with allies (i remember they were listed once). Some Russian maybe?Rudi Maxer (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Responsible for removing other combatants into footnote is Bogdan, russian nationalist from Ukraine. Should I congratulate myself good guess?Rudi Maxer (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rudi. What makes you think they were allies?

• Polish Secret State - was not recognised by USSR
• Polish People's Republic - was crated by the USSR as an alternative Communist government in exile
• Yugoslav Liberation Army - was part of the Balkan "front" and within the British Mediterranean area
• Romania (from 1944) - had no choice in being "allies"
• Bulgaria (from 1944) - had no choice in being "allies"
• Czechoslovak People's Republic - was crated by the USSR as an alternative Communist government in exile

About the only Allies that were on the Eastern Front were some French pilots, some British RAF personnel training Soviet pilots, and their missions, along with the Americans, overseeing Lend-Lease deliveries.--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Allies" is probably the wrong label, since these forces were not necessarily in any kind of political alliance except in the negative sense, i.e., they were all fighting the Nazis. But having the same enemy is different from being an ally. That is not to say they should not be listed. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to find that these belligerent boxes get way to large, listing everybody who contributed anything, regardless of impact / scale. Considering the infobox guidelines state that we should restrict it to an upper-limit of seven belligerents per faction, I'm a large believer in keeping to only the combatants that actually made a pronounced difference.

Case-in-point, Bulgaria is listed under the Axis side, even though Bulgarian troops didn't actually directly participate in actions against the Soviets; they were restricted to anti-partisan duties. Oberiko (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

66.159.82.116, please don't copy and paste entire webpages into articles without attribution as you did here using this website. It's plagiarism. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated claims of most casualties quite possibly not true

I think that this article, both in the second paragraph and casualties section, makes incorrect claims that A. More people fought and died on the eastern front than all other theaters combined and that B. The most died there over compared to other theaters. I think both claims are false, because of China, where probably twenty to twenty five million people died, maybe more if we count that war from 1931, which we should. I don't really feel qualified to edit these claims out of this page, however I would appreciate if someone else would, as the brutality of the China front was even greater than the eastern, and is not nearly often enough considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.45.98 (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Marvelous scholarly research. Check out this the well-resourced data here: World War II casualties. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That page proves that more people didn't die on the eastern front than other fronts combined, and strongly suggests that more people didn't fight and die on the eastern front. Moreover, it doesn't address the fact that this view of the China war does not include fighting in a series of campaigns (also well documented on wikipedia) from 1931 that would bring the cost even higher. Certainly in China, the view of the war I have offered here would be the norm (they would even consider the casualties much higher, although I suppose they are probably wrong http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-08/15/content_468908.htm). Even granted that 35 million is way to high, a 20 million civilian count has been offered before. And outside of the realm of statistics, the fact is that histories of the Second World War frequently disregard the enormous cost of the China war by much greater documentation and attention to the eastern front. This was the problem I was addressing. And whatever is meant by it, I don't appreciate your first comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.45.98 (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1)More combatants definately died on the Eastern Front than on all other fronts combined (about 22 million all together during WW2, over 14 millions allies, over 8 million axis; on Eastern front - no less than 13.7 million (at least 8.7 million soviets+5 million axis. Thus, on all other fronts 8.3 millions died, including 3.7-4.3 million for the Second Sino-Japanese war (3.2-3.8 million chinese+0.5 million japanese). 2)In terms of number of combatants, the Soviet Union mobilized over 32 million men and women into the military; the Japanese - about 8.5 million men, out of which about half served in China. It's most definate that the Eastern Front indeed was the largest in terms of number of combatants involved; but is was it really larger than the rest of the war combined? 3)As for the total loss of life - 27 million Soviet citizens (military+civilians)+5 million Axis combatants+at least 1 million of European civilians killed in cross-fire = at least 33 million, which is about half of total life losses of the war (over 62 million). But considering that different sources provide variety in numbers, I'm sure that this is not concrete enough. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely concede the point about numbers mobilized, I had actually forgotten that Absolute War goes so far as to suggest that Stalin mobilized 72 million throughout the war for potentially combatant duties. I am still ambiguous about total death tolls, though; it looks like 29.6-32.6 from the article on Eastern front death toll, with the total cost of the war as 72 million according to the World War II Casualties article. This may be due to ambiguity as to what front Yugoslavia is part of (I see it maybe listed in eastern front, but that is patently absurd). I guarantee you that more than .5 Japanese soldiers died in the war, I have never seen a count remotely that low in Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang, Soldiers of the Sun by the Harries, the Rising Sun by John Toland, Kempeitai by Raymond Lamont-Brown, Japans Total Empire by Louise Young, or the collection of Essays on the Japanese army that I can't seem to find now. In fact my strong impression is that the death toll was in fact much much higher than conventional western counts (obviously not on the dramatic scale of civilian casualties, but still relevant here,) particularly if we correctly appreciate that the war lasted 14 years and included a repressive gangster state. I do concede the point with regard to a specific comparison of China and the SU, I honestly forgot to consider axis allied states that bore a huge portion of the casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.45.98 (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Second Sino-Japanese war article claims 480 thousand KIA for Axis forces in China. Back to the point, while more combatants died on the Eastern front than on all other combined, I doubt that more people fought on the Eastern Front than in the rest of the war. As for overall deaths, about half died in the German-Soviet war, but I don't think we can prove or disprove it, so lets drop it from the article, or rephrase it somehow. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Source for Largest Loss of Life in WWII?

I was wondering if there is a source for this claim made in the introduction of this article:

"It was the largest theater of war in history and was notorious for its unprecedented ferocity, destruction, and immense loss of life. More people fought and died on the Eastern Front than in all other theaters of World War II combined. With over 30 million dead, many of them civilians, the Eastern Front has been called a war of extermination."

I am not disputing this claim, but there doesn't seem to be any source cited, and it doesn't seem to me like a statement like this should be included in the article without a citation. 72.141.104.5 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First poster here, after looking right above me it seems like their is already a discussion about this, however I still stand by my belief that a concrete source should be cited for that statement, or it should be revised or removed from the article. 72.141.104.5 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted "Pyrrhic" from Infobox

I do not think "Pyrrhic victory" is an appropriate description of the result of WW2 in the East because the term is usually associated with the side which eventually loses a war, or suffers strategic decline as the result of heavy losses, neither of which apply to the results attained by the USSR. NCDane 8/5/08

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Not so friendly" :
  • [http://www.rmc.ca/academic/conference/iuscanada/papers/goette_sovietpaper.pdf ''Not-So-Friendly Fire''], Queen’s University, Canada
  • [http://www.rmc.ca/academic/conference/iuscanada/papers/goette_sovietpaper.pdf ''Not-So-Friendly Fire''], Queen’s University, Canada

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg

The image Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg
• Image:Totenkopf-Kursk-01.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Commanders in infobox

There are clearly too many commanders in infobox. Infobox is meant to be short and informative. Currently commanders section totally fails in that field. Someone who knows more about this stuff should radically cut that list shorter and remove everyone who did not command atleast a front/army group.--Staberinde (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Northern Sector of the Eastern Front

There is a lack of information regarding operations in northern flank of the Eastern Front. There is nothing written about the fighting going on at northern half of the Soviet-Finnish border where German and Soviet forces clashed. (Repdetect117 (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

Article

Why isn't this article even a good article? Who can review this article? Mallerd (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mart Laar?

Mart Laar as reference? Does wikipedia want to insult itself that much? Do you people know who he is???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.50.118 (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Mart Laar PhD is an Estonian politician and historian. What exactly do you have in mind? --Erikupoeg (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Erikupoeg, I would partially agree with the anonimous editor. I propose to remove these numbers for following reasons:
1) These numbers were provided by the Estonian side. As a rule, the opposite side's numbers are less trustworthy and usually should not be shown;
2) These numbers are a postwar indirect estimate (that has been done in a somewhat dubious way), therefore, the statement in its present form ("The offensive at Estonia claimed, etc") is simply incorrect.
3)The present article avoids to show detailed casualties for majority battles, presenting the numbers only in some particular cases, only for few the most important battles (Kiev 1941, Stalingrad, Bagration). Although the importance of the battle of Narva used to be underestimated, definitely, it wasn't a pivotal Eastern Front battle. Therefore indroduction of these numbers goes aganst the overal article's style.
Based on all said above I support the editing made by 99.231.50.118, although I definitely do not support his comments on Mart Laar.
We should remove these nubmers.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the number of casualties is not the most relevant fact about the Battle of Tannenberg Line, but the fact of the campaign actually happening is relevant. So I propose the following statements replacing the numbers of casualties: "In Estonia, the Soviet Leningrad Front failed to break through to the Baltic port of Tallinn, attacking the smaller well-fortified German Army Group Narwa in a terrain not suitable for large scale operations." --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally agree. The only thing I am not certain about is if the proposed piece of text and the sentence: "The rapid progress threatened to cut off and isolate the German units of Army Group North bitterly resisting the Soviet advance to the Baltic ports and the Soviet re-occupation of Estonia." tell about the same events. Maybe, it make sense to combine them together? Could you plese do appropriate changes in the article and let's see if additional modification is needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the new version presents the course of the events in a wrong sequence. To my understanding, a failure of the Soviet ferocious attempt to take Narva retarded the advance of the Soviet troops in the Baltic region. Then, after the rapid progress of Operation Bagration a threat started to loom of cutting off and isolation of the German units in Estonia. Therefore, I would propose to regroup the paragraph. My (preliminary) version is:

In a ferocious attempt in the Sinimäed Hills, Estonia, the Soviet Leningrad Front failed to break through the defence of the bitterly resisting the Soviet advance smaller well-fortified Army Group Narva in a terrain not suitable for large scale operations. This significantly retarded the Soviet advance to the Baltic port of Tallinn and the Soviet re-occupation of Estonia. However, the rapid progress of Operation Bagration threatened to cut off and isolate the German units of Army Group North and forced its withdrawal from Estonia in September 1944.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this kind of propeganda?

I must admit I have'nt read the text yet, but with just looking at the pictures who has been choosen in this article, i have to ask why there is ONLY pictures of German crimes and Soviet equipment and soliders, and absolutly NOTHING of the extreme Soviet crimes done on the east front? Is it something I hate, then it is propeganda, especially the russian/soviet one, since it comes from regimes with and criminal agenda (the soviet and now Putin). I will read trough the text later and make my editons if it is neede, AND add pictures of Soviet crimes. I am a international journalist educated in history with WWII as extrem speciality, and will surely read trough this and se if it's just a copy of the soviet not-very-trustful version or if the main author has been neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.225.50 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think, no one minds moving this section according to the chronological order.

I personally agree that war crimes of all sides should be reflected proportionally to their scale. Therefore, if someone has some concrete pictures to introduce, I am ready to discuss.

However, I would like everyone to remember the following. Based on the number of troops involved and military losses sustained by both sides, the WWII (the whole WWII, not only European theatre) was mainly the Soviet-German war. Therefore, it is natural to expect the Eastern Front war crimes to be proportionally high. As a result, speaking about the extreme Soviet crimes taken from this context is simply not honest and is not acceptable for an "international journalist educated in history with WWII as extrem speciality". If you calculate the number of Axis civilians killed by Soviet soldiers per one Soviet KIA and compare this number with corresponding figures for the Americans the result will be spectacular.

And one more point. As many sources point out, the German cruelty towards the population of the occupied territories was ideologically motivated and generally was not dictated by the military needs. Moreover, some researchers consider it to be one of significant factors that pre-determined the Nazi's defeat. In contrast, the Soviet propaganda of hatred towards all Germans was one of necessary tools needed to win in the almost hopeless situation. It was, in actuality, one of important factors contributed to the victory, that, ultimately, saved lives of many British and American soldiers. Therefore, most accusations of the Red Army in war crimes that come from the West are absolutely hypocritical.

I strongly oppose to discuss Soviet war crimes taken out of context.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. Although I absolutely agree that propeganda is something everyone should hate, the appendix "especially the russian/soviet one" is something Orwellian. All propaganda is disgustful...

The task of Wikipedia is to present facts in their original context (including motives for the people making things happen), not to evaluate any of the facts or events. According to the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi actions are war crimes and are presented. The Nuremberg verdicts excplicitly excluded some of the actions by the Axis from from being criminal, like the Baltic conscripts fighting against the Soviet forces. Wikipedia cannot present such actions as criminal. Very few of the actions by the Allied forces have gone through war trial, therefore we cannot use the term 'criminal' or a synonym for them, neither to present them in the context of being 'equal' to Axis crimes in their criminality. We can only present accusations. We can also call them 'atrocities' or use any other relevant term from literature. But anonymous commentators, could you please point out the facts about Nazi crimes, which you find redundant, or present facts, which you find relevant for adding in the article. --Erikupoeg (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Erikupoeg. I am inclined to separate legal and common sense definitions of the word "crime". Although mass rapes of German women by Soviet soldiers, mass killing of German civilians during the US/UK bombing campaigns or killing of the Japanese in Hiroshima or Tokyo have never been qualified as crimes by any court, they definitely are crimes from the point of view of a common sense. Therefore, I think the term crime can be used in our case.

However, we have to take into account the context in which war crimes had been commited. Deliberate killing of Dresden citizens by mass bobming was just a (inefficient) measure aimed to force Germany to surrender earlier (that would save much more lives). Similarly, deliberate starvation of Leningrad citizens could be considered as a measure aimed to force the city's defenders to surrender. Both of them were crimes, although they can be considered unavoidable evil.

Nevertheless, there were other crimes. Starvation of Jews in Warsaw Ghetto had no military purposes. Its sole aim was to exterminate its inmates. Mass murders of Soviet POW had also no practical needs. It is worth noting that all three photos that depict Nazi crimes present the crimes of that type: deliberately organized senseless murders.

I never heard of special Soviet troops having the task of mass killing of German civilians. Most mass killing or rapes were a result of local initiative of low level officers or even privates, in other words, the collateral effect of the overal brutality of the Soviet-German war. They can also easily be explained by the fact that during first three years of the war all the Germans, Hungarians or Romanians Soviet soldiers faced were the invaders that had to be killed by any possible means. Definitely, the Soviet government is responsible for not taking special measures to prevent mass killing after the Red Army entered the Axis territory, however, it can hardly be accused in deliberate organisation of mass killing or rapes.

Therefore, I think that adding some information about Soviet war crimes would be usefull provided that proper explanations and comparisons with the German crimes are done. It would be useful and convinsing.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

They are crimes now, but at the time they weren't. "For some reason" the people at the time wanted only the Germans to be convicted of crimes. Wikipedia is not a judge or lawmaker, we believe now that there are things such as human rights. Don't let time cloud your judgement. Mallerd (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) PS: I'm not saying the raping and killing were not horrible or criminal, in any other context I would call them crimes. Although in wikipedia you should be neutral, stick to sources and not draw your own conclusions.

This question cannot be reduced to the existence or non-existence of sources. Have a look at the Soviet war crimes article, and you will find that reliable sourses that discuss Soviet atrocities do exist. And based on these sources, the Soviet crimes look really enormous, if we take these events out of the WWII context. In other words, the Soviet war crimes article is absolutely biased despite most facts presented there are true and most sources seem reliable.
To write a good article we have to draw our own conclusion based on all reliable sources available on the subject. Of cource, our opinion should not be present in the article explicitly, however, we have to have it to decide how much weight should be given to one or another POV.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that there are war crimes, I was not trying to reduce the question to the existence or non-existence of sources. I tried to make a point that at the time the Soviets were not prosecuted for acts which they called "crimes against humanity" when they were prosecuting the Germans. Nowadays, we (and not even every one of "us") are judging (important classification because the word is related to justice, justice in turn is related to the wishes of the public) the Soviets as war criminals, but it should not show in a neutral wikipedia article. That is just my opinion and I perfectly understand if there will be a certain bias in this article about war crimes. I shall not revert any of those edits. Sorry for the many parntheses. Mallerd (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

30 million died?

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

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

Of course, civilian casualties are also included into this number. For sources, you can look at the World War II casualties. All numbers there have been meticulously verified. You can find the sources there.
As regards to military losses, Krivosheev's book (G. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7, online version is available in Russian only [2]) is quite a reliable source for the USSR, although it contains some numbers for the Axis countries: Hungary, Romania, Finland (not officially the Axis member), Italy and Slovakia sustained 1,468,145 irrecoverable losses (668,163 KIA/MIA), Germany - 7,181,100 (3,604,800 KIA/MIA) + 579,900 PoWs died in Soviet captivity. It worths mentioning, however that a considerable part German losses during 1945 is hard to attribute to Eastern or Wesrent front. Nevertheless, taking into account that more than a half of German troops fought in the East even by the very end of the war, the numbers look reasonable, and some Western sources (e.g. Glantz) give even larger losses. So we have about 4.8 million Axis losses in the East during the period of 1941-1945. This is more than a half of all Axis losses (including Asia/Pacific theatre).
As regards to the Allied losses, this question is more or less clear: the USSR sustained 10.5 million military losses (including PoWs died in German captivity), so only military losses (the Axis + the USSR) amount to 15 million, far greater than in all other theatres. The numbers of civilian losses (with references) can be found in the World War II casualties.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Croatia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimate Sovet victory?

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

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

Axis-Soviet War

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

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

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

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

More correct definition of EF

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

Treatment of German Civilians During Russian Advance

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

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

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

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

Siberian troops

The text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casualties section biased?

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

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

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

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

The sentence:

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

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

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

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

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