Talk:Eastern Front (World War I)

Puppet-states

The article is missing the puppet-states established by the Central Powers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You never see any mention of the efffect of climate on the Eastern Front in World war !, yet this played a dominant role in WW". Does anybody have information for why there is such a great difference? Is it because Germany did not penetrate very far East? Or the weather was not as extreme? The article makes the point that the ground was often solid, so cold must have been a factor.80.169.162.100 (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC) The effect of climate on the Eastern Front does not really receive much attention in 'Western' accounts of the war simply because the Western accounts of the First World War concentrate on the Western Front and ignore all but the major actions on the Eastern Front. The inter-linkage of the war between West and East is also often overlooked. In respect of weather it played a major role as it always does in Russia, The 'Rasputitsa' of the Spring and Autumn made movement and offensives difficult. The Winter cold was also a significant factor

December 1916 was the coldest since 1891;

January 1917 was the coldest since 1893;

February 1917 was the coldest since 1902;

The winter seasons (December-February) 1916/17 and 17/18 were both cold. One has to go back to 1891 to find an equivalent cold season.

Winter 1916/17 was on par with winter 1939/40 which was acknowledged as bad although not as bad as 1941 which was the worst Russian winter in the 20th Century. In addition the snowfalls of 1915-18 were the heaviest since 1871 and would not be repeated until 1939-42 With regard to the considerable mining in the Central Baltic and particularly in the Gulf of Finland Area since 1914, it is worth noting that the ice coverage in the Baltic Sea, north of latitude 57° North, (island Gotland – Liepaja) increased from one war winter to another:

--in winter 1913 the ice coverage was about 110,000 square kilometres;

--in winter 1914 the ice coverage was about 120,000 square kilometres;

--in winter 1915 the ice coverage was about 190,000 square kilometres;

--in winter 1916 the ice coverage was about 330,000 square kilometres;

--in winter 1917 the ice coverage was about 400,000 square kilometres;

--in winter 1918 the ice coverage was about 160,000 square kilometres;

--in winter 1919 the ice coverage was about 150,000 square kilometres;

The maximum ice cover possible north of latitude 57° North is 420,000 square kilometres. This coverage was observed only in 1940 and 1942 after 1917. The ice winter of 1917 ranked 3rd since 1894109.159.70.139 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Weather didn't played dominant role in 1941 and 1942. WWII was won not by General Frost, but by the Red Army soldiers and officers and Soviet nation.—El gato verde (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC) This comment seems to be less than objective and is not really relevant to an article on the First World War: 1. WW2 was won by the combined armies of the allies not by one nation. 2. The Soviet Union was not a technically a single nations but a Union of Soviet Republics. 3.Weather did play a part and this is even referred to in the Soviet propaganda of the time. Some specific examples are: firing pins breaking with the cold, the grease in the working mechanisms of guns freezing solid, German panzers not able to move easily in the snow because of their narrow tracks (as compared to the wide tracks of the Soviet T34). General winter may not have won the war but he made life very difficult for the ill-prepared Germans having an impact from the tactical to the strategic level.109.159.70.139 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Puppet states by Central Powers??? How about puppet states by the Soviets. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

German Ninth Army?

In the section "1914" third paragraph, there's a link for the German Ninth Army, though it links to an article regarding the World War II German Ninth Army. Anyone want to edit this or perhaps place the correct army or force that was in question in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy6860 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Result

Decisive Central Powers victory or not? —El gato verde (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman casualties

Ottoman Empire had 300.000 dead men in this campaign. And nearly 3 million civilian lost. Mirochi (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is only about the Eastern Front, not the Middle Eastern or Caucasian Campaigns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaan Habib (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ottomans had a whole army fighting in Galicia. Thousands of casualties. Not mentioned anywhere here. Sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.176.219 (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Casualties

I think that someone should take a look at the casualties that were changed in a recent edit. 2 000 000+ dead germans and austria-hungarians vs 600 000 dead and "deserted" russians seems quite absurd. Especially considering that the german army during this era was known for great training and equipment, while the russians were known to be incompetent and badly equiped ... Seems to me that the source is taken straight from some Soviet-era propaganda source.

Soviets vs Central Powers???

When did the Soviet officially fought the Central Powers??? They concluded a peace treaty.... Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They only fought briefly, but it happened. See Operation Faustschlag. Capt Jim (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Capt Jim, is that so? What about the ongoing Brest-Litovsk peace talks that started in December of 1917 by Soviets? The Operation Faustschlag was more of a method of pacification as the peace talks stalled. There is no proof that Russian soldiers that were fighting during the operation pledged their allegiance to Soviets prior to it. It was more of inertia run of events rather than the actual war between Soviets and Central Powers. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is. There is even a passage in Lenin's writings where he condemns Trotsky for bad command. - Melilac (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the lack of will to fight is not the same as no fight. The battles of Keila and Narva were definitely battles of Red Army where they tried to stall german ofensive to get better terms on piece negotiations with troops loyal to Soviet power (it means Kronstadt naval troops that were loyal to Soviet power). And Germany moved on to get better terms for their side. Piece talks is not armistice.Melilac (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

combatants in 1918

As far as I know only fighting on eastern-front in 1918 was Operation Faustschlag by German and Austrian forces against Soviets. So I am wondering why Bulgaria, Ottoman Empire and Romania are marked as combatants for 1918. Also addition of UK as "supported by" is imo also weird.--Staberinde (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

style

His article reads like an undergraduate paper, perhaps by a non-native English speaker. No one in Petrograd wanted to go to work? Really? Especially on the upcoming 100th anniversary, this should be a top article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormj (talk • contribs) (Added 28 June 2014)

I agree. That's probably most evident in the "propaganda" section--it felt like I was reading a middle school essay. Utahwriter14 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Robinvp11

@Robinvp11: I have a serious problem with your edits, so stop. You've been making a bunch of rewrites with no edit summaries and you've removed a number of in-line citations. I don't want to simply mass-revert you but what you're doing isn't helping Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this article to the last stable version. Editors wishing to improve the article had better include in-line citations. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Article rewrite

Who wants to help me rewrite this article to a higher standard? Славянский патриот (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Would help Кахетия (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The German army in Finland

The article states (1918), "The German corps landed in Finland, but never got into battle, and was to no help, as the Whites had won the war by May 1918." This is incorrect. The German Baltic Division (Ostseedivision) under von der Goltz landed at Hanko on April 3, 1918, and marched on Helsinki, then in the hands of the Reds. After skirmishes along the way, particularly at the line of fortified defenses constructed around Helsinki by the Russians after the Russo-Japanese war and now manned by the Reds, the division reached Helsinki on April 10. The actual battle for the city commenced on the 12th and ended on the 14th. By this time, the Whites had won the battle of Tampere (the costliest battle of the war in terms of casualties) 100 miles northwest of Helsinki on April 6, but there were still large numbers of Reds in southern Finland and the last actual battle at Viborg only ended on April 28, with the last Reds surrendering on May 5. The German taking of Helsinki may not have been the most decisive battle of the civil war, but it certainly had a notable effect on weakening the Reds' position in the southern part of the country. The fact that Helsinki was the capitol also carried notable propaganda value.--Death Bredon (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

casualties and citations

@Avidius: You have no business removing cited content unless you can reasonably challenge the source. Making biased statements about who died where doesn't address the issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Your source shows total casualties on all fronts. Give us a source that specifically says Bulgaria lost 250 000 men on the Eastern Front (an absurd and misleading claim that demonstrates a profound lack of basic knowledge on the subject). --Avidius (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Who is responsible for this ridiculous casualty section? Krivocheev's data includes every soldier who died or was presumed missing & dead - including the 200k who dies as POWs. However the Central Powers section doesn't include the 450k German+Austrian POWs who died, not to mention the random assumption that only 50% of Austro-Hungarian losses occured in the east..?! Also the Romanian losses seem to include the ones who died in the war against Hungary. Further, the Ottomans suffered extremely heavy casualties in the Caucasus. In short, the whole thing's a joke. And if you want to use Krivocheev's estimate for Russian losses, you should use his estimate for the Central Powers losses to, hence why I'm editing the casualty section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.65.23 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the issue with the Cox-Ellis source? You're removing source material against consensus without any explanation as to why. I need more than assertions that it's "incorrect". Chris Troutman (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no issue with source, but issue with interpretation of numbers. Lolipopm1995 (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Trench Warfare

The article states "While World War I on the Western Front developed into trench warfare, the battle lines on the Eastern Front were much more fluid and trenches never truly developed."

However, this is at best misleading. Both sides did entrench after the 1914 fighting. However, the length of the front meant than there were fewer defenders per kilometer of front, which made somewhat easier to break through the enemy's defenses, as the Central Powers did in their 1915 offensives and the Russians did in their 1916 Brusilov offensive. However, by 1916 the trenches could be extensive. While the Brusilov offensive broke through against the Austro-Hungarians in 1916, the Russian Lake Naroch Offensive and Baranovichi Offensive against the Germans in 1916 both failed to break through the trench lines. These Wikipedia entries describe the German positions as "well-fortified" or "fortified", which means trenches, not formal fortifications. The Russian positions were also entrenched, and German attacks and counterattacks also mostly failed against the Russian defenses. You can see photos of Russian trenches, for example, at supotnitskiy.ru/stat/stat76.htm[[1]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.141.156 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

One thing

The October revolution of 1917 took place in November. It's called October revolution due to imperial Russia still using the Julian calendar at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.103.93 (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"Propaganda" section

The "propaganda" section of the article is not only written in an extremely vague way that makes it sound like a middle school essay, but it's also out of place, seeming more like it deserves to be towards the end, after the description of the course of war. Can anyone more knowledgeable on the topic rework it?Utahwriter14 (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to Request for Expert Review

I gave this a go a few years back when I didn't fully appreciate the best way to edit :) so I'm happy to give it another go but in a more structured way.

There are multiple problems with this article, including structure (doesn't seem logical), writing (another editor used the phrase 'middle school'), sources (overly reliant on one) etc.

The standard view of the Eastern Front is that it was a war of nationalities; this is certainly covered but its not really clear. So I'll put up some edits, then people can comment, adjust etc.

Robinvp11 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Numbers of military losses are absolutely horrible and false

military losses are absolutely horrible and false

Russian deaths are doubled, german deaths are very understated. Even in the sources of this information we can see absolutely different numbers. Lolipopm1995 (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The current material is sourced, but any contribution should be welcomed, as long as it can be attributed to reliable sources. What are your sources? Kindest regards /EriFr (talk)

Number of russian military deaths in this article are based on this http://www.rus-sky.com/history/library/w/w02.htm#160 The total combat losses are 1890369, actually "killed" like written in this Wikipedia article is just 1200000. 2254369 is the number of total military deaths from both combat and not combat reasons (like diseases). Sorry for my English. Lolipopm1995 (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Several Improvements

I added a vast array of improvements, including a section mentioning the Units Involved, which I styled in a similar way to the Wikipedia Article on Operation Barbarossa. However the opening sections, Geography and Propaganda can also be improved, especially the latter which only uses one citation and is extremely vague, giving a reader no concrete information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaan Habib (talk • contribs) 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Result

Hi @2600:1700:10B8:A20:8D9B:EE89:26C2:1147 - I noticed you keep changing the "Result". This might be a more appropriate place to discuss your proposed change. dizzyflamingo (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So, the user has proposed changes to the "Result". The user has proposed two variants: 1) Changing the result to "Military Stalemate". 2) Changing the result to "German victory against the Russian Empire" combined with "Stalemate between the RSFSR and Germany". Any thoughts? I can't find a military stalemate on the Eastern Front on 3 March 1918. It would be helpful if the user participated in a discussion about the changes proposed. Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I found that the user has also proposed a third, fourth and fifth variant: 3) "Disputed" and 4) "Indecisive" and 5) "Stalemate". "Indecisive" looks creative. /EriFr (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Added internal link

I added a link to Battle of Stolluponen. There's very little discussion of the first battle of the war, even though it seems like a relatively important topic. Using Keegan as as reference primarily. I might substitute references to Encyclopedia of Britannica as I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. Not sure yet. But if anyone has any strong opinions on the matter, please let me know. Orcanami; or the 🌊⬛🐬⬜🌊(talk) 15:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not strictly relevant, but this article says the Battle of Stallupoenen was a disaster for the Russians, whereas the article on the battle itself says it was inconclusive and its results irrelevant. In another article (I've lost the place) it's described as a Russian success! Solzhenitsyn (I know it's fiction) describes Gumbinnen (apparently the same battle) as a Russian success betrayed by failure to follow up, contributing to the disaster of Tannenberg.

It can't be all three. I'm no expert on this campaign but someone might reconcile the versions Chrismorey (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Further: the article Battle of Tannenberg calls the engagement Gumbinnen. It seems it was fought between both places, but we should be consistent Chrismorey (talk)

Introduction

Imo there is an issue with the third paragraph. Basically if you are describing events that took place in mid 1916 you can't then use the word meanwhile to introduce an event from the next year. The word meanwhile means at the same time so in the context it's incorrect. Firestar47 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: Romania entering the war

In the last line it says they recieved help from the Allies "notably France". Surely Russia should be mentioned as well. Firestar47 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a central powers victory

I believe it is incorrect to list the result as a central powers victory, even with clarification. Russia exited the war due to the Bolshevik revolution, and shortly after the central powers were soundly defeated and forced to give up all their gains and more. This doesn’t belong in the result box NuancedProwler (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You've been blocked, NuancedProwler))) "This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy". So I won't comment on your nonsenseVaclaw1990 (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Result in infobox

The result in the infobox was changed from "Central Powers victory" to "Initial Central Powers Victory... Eventual Entente victory". This does not follow the documentation for Template:Infobox military conflict. For example it says: this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). At the moment there is too much detail for the infobox. I also do not think that Russia is recognized as a "victorious country" despite the peace treaty being annulled, the reference simply says page 116 with no book title. Mellk (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, those recent additions are frankly silly.--Staberinde (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

An account with five edits restored this. Even if we ignore the documentation, since the end date is the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, it does not make sense to include the "eventual" result from the signing of the Versailles treaty a whole year later. Maybe they can argue this for the outcome of the war as a whole but here it is simply not relevant. Mellk (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

in my opinion, it is simply wrong to ignore the second Romanian campaign in the "result" page you can simply specify a link to the "consequences" section where the outcome of the war is described in detail. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

End date and result are sourced. Second Romanian "campaign" was an extremely minor sideshow of Romanians capturing some stuff Germans had left behind with no actual combat. I find it highly doubtful that one can find a decent RS which would state that this made Eastern Front actually Entente victory.--Staberinde (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the de jure victory of the Entente and is fixed by the Versailles, that is, the final peace treaty, as I wrote before, this is the initial victory of the central powers with the subsequent victory of the Entente, since all the fronts of the First World War are inextricably linked and they need to be represented as one whole, the results of one front affect the other. Dushnilkin (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Was that ”de jure victory” a result of the Eastern front or a result of the Western Allied powers defeating Germany on the Western front? /EriFr (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have already written that all fronts are interconnected, the final defeat of Germany is the merit of every country on every front Dushnilkin (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The final result of the war as a whole belongs to the infobox of the main article World War I, where it is properly present.--Staberinde (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)