Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Invalid photo

In the article there is a photo where a soldier in a Yugoslavian military uniform from a rifle m24 / 48, shoots a woman with a child, but in the signature for some reason it is written that it is the German Einsatztruppen in Ukraine. It is necessary to correct or remove this absurdity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.254.254.4 (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Bollocks, basically. Your small attempt to whitewash Nazi genocide has been reverted. Do not attempt to re-revert. Irondome (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nazi Economy

Quoting from the article: "British historians Alan S. Milward and M. Medlicott show that Nazi Germany—unlike Imperial Germany—was prepared for only a short-term war (Blitzkrieg).[47]" This source is over 50 years old now. There has been a great deal of work on the complexities of the Nazi economy produced since then. In brief: nobody believes in the "Blitzkrieg economy" anymore. 174.115.167.14 (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to trim Commanders and leaders in infobox

The listing appears excessive in the infobox, and some of the choices are odd, such as Hermann Fegelein who was merely an SS-general. It looks more like a popularity contest, i.e. why Konstantin Rokossovsky and not Ivan Konev, and Gerd von Rundstedt but not Fedor von Bock?

I propose that the list of German and Soviet commanders be limited to heads of the armed forces and Chiefs of the General staff (in addition to Hitler/Stalin). For Germany, that would leave:

• Walther von Brauchitsch
• Franz Halder
• Kurt Zeitzler

For Soviet Union, that would be:

• Boris Shaposhnikov
• Aleksandr Vasilevsky

Would there be any objections? I would appreciate any input. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should probably be reassessed but going by rank or billet leaves a lot to be desired as to actual tenure in-theater or operational/strategic control. On paper they were senior, but with the realities of the personal involvement of both Hitler and Stalin in military affairs, much more active commanders should be noted, and failing to do so is a disservice to the reader. I'd say anyone who commanded at the Front or Army Group level for more than a couple of years should be considered, along with those who did substantial amounts of planning of actual operations, like Rundstedt. Unfortunately, considering the topic is the largest military conflict in human history, that leaves us with a rather lengthy list. Maybe something of a break from precedence and simply include only heads of state? Or a second, collapsed list of senior commanders below? I've removed Fegelein, whose inclusion is somewhat bizarre. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Problem is that there's an asymmetry between Soviet Fronts and German Army Groups with the former outnumbering the latter by a considerable margin. So I could go along with shortening a potentially long list. Notable commanders are likely to be listed in the main body anyways.

BTW, I dropped Steiner from the list as he never commanded anything bigger than a corps in the east and even Guderian, for all of his fame, only commanded 2nd Panzer Group for less than a year, is a bit questionable, IMO. Although I suppose you could argue that his short tenure as chief of OKH qualifies him.

I'd be much more interested in collapsing the history of the USSR sidebar and eliminating the Soviet culture sidebar entirely as they take up far too much space with only limited relevance compared to their length.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd support the changes to the other sidebars and a limiting of notable commanders to major heads of state by removing Tiso and Pavelic. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "remove campaign names cited to what appear to be personal websites - three are sufficient; rm excessive template "Culture of the Soviet Union". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Image replaced

I replaced the map that presented a pre-Barbarossa situation in a very misleading way: according to the old map, RSFSR occupied Ukraine and Bielorussia, which was not the case. It also created an impression that Germany occupied Hungary, Slovakia or Bulgaria. I concede the previous map was technically perfect, but it was deeply misleading, so it should be replaced with a more adequate map. In few days, I'll edit the current map and replace German names and a legend with English names. I'll probably add a note that the Baltic states and Bessarabia were annexed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Decisive" victory

I'm not actually thinking of MILMOS per se, but Template:Infobox_military_conflict/doc: "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat".

On the other hand I'm pretty ambivalent about this rule so maybe I'll leave it be. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a rare case when the hostilities went so far, and the whole destruction of German statehood was so dramatic that there was a need to introduce the terms "debellatio" and "occupatio sui generis". I think "decisive" is quite relevant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I see some IP continues disruptive editing. Maybe, it makes sense to request semiprotection?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "Result"

Shouldn't it be "Allied victory", instead of "Soviet victory"? --Karimyar (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It must be "Allied victory", because Soviet Union is the part of "Allies", doubtlessly. Considering Talk page opinions, I decided to turn back "Decisive Allied victory".KiL92 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Formally, it is correct. However, I don't think we should do that. First, many people interpret "Allies" as "Western Allies", and the USSR stays somewhat apart ("Soviet Union and the Allies"). Second, Eastern front was the theatre of war where just one Ally, the USSR, bore lion's share of the brunt of the war. Therefore, it would be correct, it this particular case, to say the victory was the Soviet victory.

A possible option would be "Soviet victory as part of the Allied victory in WWII in Europe".--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Paul, the Eastern Front was and should be an exclusive Soviet Victory. While lend lease played an immensely crucial role, the lion's share of contributions to the war, was provided by the Soviet Union. Cold War rhetorics and propaganda have always minimalised the importance of the nation's contribution or acknowledging its past accomplishments. Recent polls from 2015 show that only 23 percent of French citizen belive that Soviet Union's contribution were crucial, while 54 percent believed the United States was the sole reason why WWII was won. This is extremely worrisome! Dircovic (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

My opinion hasn't changed, the "(Decisive) Allied victory" is only correct description, but if you want to emphasize Soviet role, then I suggest something like "Soviet and co-belligerents victory" or accept Mr. Siebert option. Indeed, basically Eastern Front was a nazi-soviet conflict, other "Allies" role was less, for sure, but still it was. Also, we got other Soviet allies: Poland, Ygoslavia and other, take a look at the page. Anyway, "Soviet victory" is a intentional violation of neutrality, it shouldn't stay. "Soviet victory" is appropriate for some particular battle where USSR made a major contribution, not for Eastern Front. All about "lion's share" and other shares was stated in the main article. Dircovic, French people opininons about who defeated the Nazis are absolutely not valid in this dispute, have no idea why did you wrote it up here. It's Wikipedia, not your personal blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiL92 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The Western Front (World War II) says "Decisive Allied victory", and that reflects the fact that the victory was a result of joint actions of many Allies (British, American, Canadian, French, etc). Pacific War was also an Allied victory because of a significant contribution of Britain, Australia, China and (at the very end) USSR. However, Second Sino-Japanese War says the result was "Chinese victory as part of the Allied victory in the Pacific War", which is correct, because China was a separate theatre of war. However, there is a big difference between the SSJW and EF, because China actually never defeated Japan: Imperial Japanese Army surrendered in China only because Japan Empire surrendered on 2nd of September, 1945. In contrast, the very surrender of Germany was a result of its defeat primarily at EF.

Moreover, we see a very interesting situation: the result of the Battle of Stalingrad or Battle of Kursk is "Soviet victory", and all other EF related articles say the same, which is consistent with, for example what the Battle of Iwo Jima says ("American victory", not "Allied victory"). As a result, we have a situation when each separate EF battle where Allies were victorious says the result was "Soviet victory", but the overall result is "Allied victory". In connection to that, I am wondering if you can give me an example of any major EF battle which was won by Allies, not by the USSR only? The battles in Pacific where the Allies other than the US are well known, however, we cannot say the same about EF.

Finally, I think we have to return to the "decisive" issue. For sake of consistency, we either should remove "decisive" from the Western front article, or to add it to the Eastern front.

My own opinion is the result should be:

"Decisive Soviet victory"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly what I meant. Maybe the fact is that English is not my native language. But thanks for the detailed answer. I get what you mean. And I agree that we need the unification of two articles. But I repeat: "Allied victory" is the more relevant option for Infobox, all the more because it was here before. So, I'll not to insist on it anymore, war of edits isn't the right way, I hope that somewhen a more experienced user will be able to convince users to return the correct description to the page. At least, I see that the “Soviet victory” in this case it's not an effort to distort the facts by pro-Soviet users, like I thought. KiL92 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

As you can see, I am not participating in the edit war either. I also think the result should be presented in a correct way, however, which way is considered correct: the way that is formally correct, or the way that creates a correct picture? When I read "Allied victory", my impression is that the victory was won by several Allies, whose contribution was at least comparable. Can we say that about the EF? Of course, no. That means, by writing "Allied victory" (which may be formally correct), we mislead a reader. Nevertheless, I am ready to discuss this option seriously, however, as soon as we approach this issue formally, let's be consistent. Comsistency requires that all EF related articles should be changed from "Soviet victory" to "Allied victory" (of course, I mean the articles where the Soviets were victorious). Only after that we can speak about changing "Soviet" to "Allied" in this article. Moreover, we also should change all US, China, Britain etc related articles in the same way. I think the best way to discuss if that is reasonable is to go to the MilHist page and propose to develop some common approach to this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

References

This article still uses terrible maps drawn in Paint

Why does this article still use those terrible maps drawn in Paint in 2005? They are crude and ugly.--Adûnâi (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Link to German version Wikipedia

Why there is no link to German page? There is "Deutsch-Sowjetischer Krieg" and that page is about Eastern Front (WW2). Of course literal meaning is different. But for example, Japanese 独ソ戦　also literally mean "German-Soviet War".Propatriamori (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Lend Lease

I have undo Paul Siebert's edit because of the following reason. Albert Weeks notes: "Upon examining newly available Russian data, Sokolov found that an egregious error had been made by Soviet propagandists - a distortion that unfortunately has been repeated in Western books to date on Lend-Lease. Soviet historians had always maintained that Lend-Lease military-related goods made up a mere 4 percent of what Soviets themselves produced in military hardware during the war." and "Military aircraft: Instead of the Soviet claim that Lend-Lease aircraft composed 15 percent of such domestic production, Sokolov found that it was 30 percent". It should be noted that the 15% figure gets promoted by e.g. Igor Pykhalov, a known Russian historian for his revisionist attempts and rehabilitation of Stalin. Wildkatzen (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that infamous 4% stereotype is incorrect is currently commonly accepted, however, that does not mean that (i) Sokolov was the first authpr who wrote about that, and (ii) we can trust Sokolov's figures. For example, Sokolov's main thesis is that Soviet military losses were up to 40 million KIA/MIA, which is an obvious nonsense, not accepted by Western historians (who generally agree with Krivosheev's data, see, for example Ellman&Maksudov) and contradicting to demographic data. The thesis about 4% was considered a nonsense already in 1984 (see Munting, Journal of Contemporary History (SAGE, London, Beverly Hills and New Delhi),Vol. 19 (1984), 495-510, who wrote :"It is nonsense to repeat the figure of four per cent of Soviet war time production and disingenuous to disparage western aid - a feature evident in Soviet literature and one criticized even by Khrushchev. Itis nonetheless true (and this is a point repeated in some Soviet works)that Britain and the Empire received far more than the USSR from the United States. Lend-lease, in this respect, may be seen as a temporary substitute for foreign trade. Britain was a major trading nation, highly dependent on imports, especially for food and raw materials. The USSR, on the other hand, was an economy with little trade dependence whose foreign trade turnover had fallen steadily during the 1930s. Lend-lease was more of a substitute for home production. "

In summary, (i) the 4% thesis is definitely wrong; (ii) Sokolov was not the first author who wrote about that, and rejection of the 4% thesis does not make his other statements correct; (iii) the figures of tanks or aircrafts obtained by the USSR from Western Allies was relatively small, and it is correct to say that the USSR was fighting predominantly with homemade weapon, however, the major contribution of the Allies was raw materials, lorries, railway and industrial equipment, etc; (iv) the major part of the help was provided in 1943-45, after the danger of defeat was eliminated, and it became clear that the USSR would not lose the war.

It is ok to revert me, however, per BRD, it is a time to discuss your changes. I am reverting you again, please, do not add Sokolov until we came to some consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism also claim excess death rates which I do not agree with, yet the book is commonly cited here. Sokolov's casualty claims have nothing to do with the extensive Soviet distortion of Lend Lease aid, and I frankly don't know why you draw that silly analogy. All figures are represented in Albert Weeks book 'Russia's life-saver' and cited as such. The 15% figure is questionable, (computed from the overall production) as it completely neglecting the aid of production line machinery that greatly expedited Soviet aircraft production; 21% in 1944 and up to 30% overall. For instance, the T-34 tank production, 80% of aluminum used for its engine production came from Lend Lease. If you can't provide a source that genuinely question Albert Weeks for supporting Sokolov's data, then we don't may reach consensus. Wildkatzen (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

PS: As for BRD, Baccaihp has been bold and took the change diff to edit the long steady 2016 addition diff and I simply reverted to the previous addition. So please, follow you own set rules and don't revert again. Wildkatzen (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am not questioning the figure itself (although do not endorse either), I am saying that Sokolov is hardly the best source, and if the figure of 30% is trustworthy, we can use another source that says the same.

Regarding the BB, this example is incorrect, because it is not a monograph but a collective volume, the inflated figures you are talking about are coming from the introduction (which is widely criticized), but the major contributors (Werth and Margolin) publicly objected to them, and the Book is generally praised for the Werth's chapter, not for the introduction figures.

As I already wrote, the fact that a huge amount of raw materials were obtained by the USSR from the US is well known, and there is no need to combat the "4% myth". Just read the Munting's 1984 article. We are discussing not the overall scale of support but the number of aircraft produced in the US and delivered to the USSR. With regard to reverts, it is a good habit not to make any changes when the talk page discussion is in progress. Let's come to some common view, and then implement this change to the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I invited Nihlus1 to take part in the discussion. I'm moving out of town, back in a few hours. Wildkatzen (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Baccaihp does not seem to be interested, even though I welcomed him to take part.

However, I understand your objections of Sokolov and we can remove the book citation in the article. The other source -you are looking for- would be Albert Weeks, GBS - he support these figures aswell. Frankly speaking, I have no idea how the percentages are computed but given all the controversies and distortions surrounding Lend Lease, I'm willing to accept these figures. Wildkatzen (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sidenote: The "4% myth" lives on, atleast in the mindset of Baccaihp as recent vi.wiki contributions have shown: diff Everything that mention the importance of Lend Lease is bit by bit erased: diff. I don't think he has good intentions... Wildkatzen (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, two types of distortions exist: the first one is the infamous "4% myth" (which is popular mostly among Russian "patriots"), and the second is that the USSR won the war exclusively due to the help provided by the Allies, and the USSR was fighting using Western weapon (this myth is popular in Western media and among Russian "liberals"). In reality, the role of lend-lease was very significant, but (i) the help consisted mostly in raw materials, food, explosives, aviation fuel, trucks, etc., whereas tanks, airplanes, guns, rifles etc were produced in the USSR, and (ii) the help was massive after the most critical period of the war ended, so it is incorrect top say that the Allies saved the USSR from defeat. In reality, they helped the USSR to win, and their help saved a lot of lives of Soviet (and, indirectly, Western) solders. In other words, it would be equally incorrect to say lend-lease was unimportant and to claim it was critically important, and we need to explain that in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your recent change, because the fact that Britain got more help from the US is well known, and I saw it in some Western media. I agree that the source is bad, and it should be replaced, but the information is correct. I need some time to find the ref. At least, Munting says: "It is nonetheless true (and this is a point repeated in some Soviet works) that Britain and the Empire received far more than the USSR from the United States.", but I remember I saw the figure of one quarter somewhere.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It's okay if you are going to replace the ref, but I'm in praticular dubious of the following claim "Totally, as for the Soviet Union, U.S. supplies amounted to just 4% of the Soviet Union's defense-industry output at the time." diff Wildkatzen (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The figure of 4% may be quite correct if we are talking about the armament sensu stricto. Indeed, if we count just tanks, rifles, guns, etc., the Allied help looks quite modest. However, a considerable part of Soviet tanks were made from American armour plates, a considerable part of Soviet planes used American high octane fuel, and all Soviet solders were eating American canned beef (tushonka) prepared according to a recipe specially designed for Russians. That makes Allied help very significant. We need to re-word this paragraph to avoid propaganda of both kinds. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to quote Albert Weeks again: Upon examining newly available Russian data, Sokolov found that an egregious error had been made by Soviet propagandists - a distortion that unfortunately has been repeated in Western books to date on Lend-Lease. Soviet historians had always maintained that Lend-Lease military-related goods made up a mere 4 percent of what Soviets themselves produced in military hardware during the war. I think he's pretty clear on the military hardware. Wildkatzen (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, it is not clear what was considered as the military hardware: thus, if one excludes tracks, boots, canned beef, aviation fuel, armour plates, etc from this category, the figure of 4% can be obtained, but it would be definitely misleading, and I am not sure it should be present in the text unless supplemented with proper explanation. As Munting said, even Khrushchev criticized this figure, which means the 4% myth was not universally accepted even by the Soviets. What I am objecting to is the attempt to represent Sokolov as the person who was the first scholar who debunked the 4% myth (it was considered a myth long before him), and giving an undue weight to Sokolov's own conclusion that lend-lease was absolutely vital (it was extremely important, but not vital).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No, the figure of 4% cannot be obtained with the newer findings when excluding all non-military related hardware. (p.122-3) What Sputnik news claim is misleading and based on old Soviet distortions. Also, its not Sokolov's sole conclusion, but a volume work published by many Russian academics: Two courageous, assiduous Russian historians, Boris V. Sokolov and Alla Paperno, joined by a few other, younger native scholars, have broken through what they call the enforced silence surrounding the true extent and effect of the assistance given the Soviets by the estimated $12.5 billion worth of U.S. Lend-Lease during World War II. Their book-length works were published in the late 1990s and in 2001. Articles by them continue to appear in Russian scholarly journals. One such piece of research, by Russian historian Aleksandr Vislykh appeared in the November 12, 2001 edition of the Russian publication, Independent Military Observer. (p. ix) Wildkatzen (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I probably was not clear enough. If you arbitrarily exclude some categories, you can get the figure of 4%. However, since it is highly misleading, I am not sure we should keep it in the text. However, what is necessary to keep is the fact that Britain got much more help than the USSR. That fact gives us an upper estimate of the scale of the lend-lease help to the USSR.

I looked through the Vislykh's article, it is not impressive. It contains no facts I am unfamiliar with. With regard to Sokolov, I would treat him with great caution, because his writings are strongly affected by his political views, and his figures should be double-checked. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. I am not necessarily advocating such an approach but your objections are reasonable given his problematic political views. However, Albert Weeks claim that Soviet statistics themselves show that aircraft production would have been less than one-half (p.135) or about 45,000 aircraft, of what it was without the machinery aid (137,000) and that Stalin himself noted in 1944, that two-thirds of Soviet heavy industry had been built with U.S. help. (p.129) That is significant, making Sokolov's figure plausible. Wildkatzen (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Paul, I have replaced Sputnik news site with Weeks diff to keep the 'figure of one quarter' as you wished; the reverse shipments needs another source. I also have removed the cite to Sokolov and used Weeks overall conclusion diff. Regards Wildkatzen (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

Hello. It says that free france supported the war until 1945. They dissolved in 1944. You should change that. Than You 100.15.209.162 (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2019

Please change 1943-45 to 1943-44 on free france. Also, you should put that spain supported germany. Thanks 100.15.209.162 (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

the FF that were in the USSR were there helping till 1945 so it is right and the info box is good it shows all the key players for the front Jack90s15 (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.com/French-Eagles-Soviet-Heroes-Normandie-Niemen/dp/0750940743

(Normandie-Niemen' clashed with the crack German fighter group JG51 Molders in the air battle over Konigsberg in March 1945.)

 Not done: Asked and answered above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Roza Shanina.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Soviet term "Great Patriotic War"

[1] The term Great Patriotic War, as denoting the Eastern Front in 1941-45, is of Soviet origin and first appeared during the war. Therefore it should first be described as being used by the "Soviet Union." The term "former Soviet Union" applies to the territories of the former Soviet Union in the post-Soviet period; it was popularized in the 1990s to refer to multiple ex-Soviet republics simultaneously, e.g. Former Soviet Union Demilitarization Act of 1992. Therefore Soviet is correct; perhaps former Soviet is also relevant, but it has a different meaning. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb Ok thank you for pointing this out.Driverofknowledge (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The following text is partly incorrect

citation: In June 1940 the Soviet Union occupied and illegally annexed the three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact ostensibly provided security to the Soviets in the occupation both of the Baltics and of the north and northeastern regions of Romania (Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia, June–July 1940), although Hitler, in announcing the invasion of the Soviet Union, cited the Soviet annexations of Baltic and Romanian territory as having violated Germany's understanding of the Pact. Moscow partitioned the annexed Romanian territory between the Ukrainian and Moldavian Soviet republics.

Hitlers claim: Is partly correct. The Sowjetunion annexed more rumanian territory then in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact agreed on. The annexation of the strategic north bukovina was not part of the pact. If it comes to the baltic states. Hitler was correct about Lithuania. It was agreed that Lithuania should stay in the german sphere of influence. Later the Sowjets pressed to agree on a territorial exchange with the polnish Lublin territory only a part of Lituania (west of the neman river) should stay under german control. After additional pressure Germany agreed on a change of the territory to the Sowjets against paying a certain summ (Sowjets to Germany). Yes the Sowjets pressed Germany bit by bit to more concessions then agreed in the pact and the annexation of the north bukovina was indeed a violation of the pact (see history of rumania /moldova).

Planned and actual territorial changes in Central Europe: 1939–1940

This should be changed in the text because its wrong.--87.147.153.76 (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Reichskommissariat

Should the the reichskommissariat count as belligerent, they did fight in the war and played major parts during the last stages of the war. Josexgoz11 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B24543, Hauptquartier Heeresgruppe Süd, Lagebesprechung.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Collage

I fixed the collage, because it was nominated for speedy deletion due to one image that was removed from Commons. I am trying to find a better solution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding result, again

Aside from the fact that yet another attempt to hide Soviet victory under Allied umbrella was against consensus (that edit got reverted on the very same day, yet is repeatedly reinstated again, despite WP:STATUSQUO), I'd like to reiterate that arguments in favor of Soviet victory (either unqualified or "as part of Allied victory") from Talk:Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)/Archive_12#Regarding_"Result" (see esp. 17:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC) and 05:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC) remarks) still stand. It could be fine if adopted as a universal approach for all Allies (" Comsistency requires that all EF related articles should be changed from "Soviet victory" to "Allied victory" (of course, I mean the articles where the Soviets were victorious). Only after that we can speak about changing "Soviet" to "Allied" in this article. Moreover, we also should change all US, China, Britain etc related articles in the same way"), but selectively removing "Soviet victory" on SU-German conflict only while retaining other Allies in their respective conflicts and battles is "a bit" POV, to say the least. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You are right, because the term "Allies" sometimes means "Western Allies" ("Allies and the Soviet Union"), so the word "allies/allied" may be sometimes misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice: A concise summary is missing from the article; feel free to write one

FYI, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead should include a summary of the topic's most important points:

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic."

"It should [...] summarize the most important points,"

The point is, if someone wants to write a summary for this article then they are free to do so (I would but I'm not knowledgable enough about the subject matter to do it properly). It should also be acceptable to include a "Summary" section immediately after the Table of Contents (but I can't find any Wikipedia:Manual of Style guidelines for this). Mgkrupa 19:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Also, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" so are "The joint German–Finnish operations [...]" and "the Soviet–Finnish Continuation War [...]" important enough to be included in the lead, while no mention is made of Romania, Stalingrad, or Operation Bagration? It just seems like a strange decision to include this information in the article's lead, given the limited length of the lead section. Mgkrupa 19:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Victims of Soviet NKVD in Lvov, June 1941.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Northern Europe

"encompassed Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Northeast Europe (Baltics), and Southeast Europe (Balkans) from 22 June 1941 to 9 May 1945." - but the Continuation War and Lapland War happened within and around Finland, a country in Northern Europe. Should this be included, or are the Finnish wars considered separate from the Eastern Front? Juxlos (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Losses of the Wehrmacht and Volkssturm in the Berlin operation

Can we also point out the Soviet point of view regarding German losses in Berlin? Link to source [2]https://vm.ric.mil.ru/Stati/item/254166/ 37.145.63.226 (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Doubtful that there were 8.7 to 10 million military deaths in the Far East theatre in WW2

I find the claim that “casualties in the Far East theatre may have been similar in number” – that is, 8.7 to 10 military deaths (as on the Eastern Front in Europe in WW 2) – highly suspect.

First, what does this refer to?  Is this referring to the Far East Theatre, normally called the War in the Pacific, which mainly involved Japan v. China, and then Japan v. the United States?  If so, I don’t see how this could be true, especially since most of the deaths in China during this period were of civilians, rather than military. For example, an estimated 500,000 mainly civilians deaths in Nanjing (during the so-called “Rape of Nanjing”), and so on.

The ”Pacific War” entry in Wikipedia estimates 4.0 million military deaths of all allies (including China) between 1937-1945, and 2.5 million for Japan.  This totals 6.5 million military casualties, not really very close to 8.7 to 10 million, as estimated on the Eastern Front in Europe.

Shouldn't this at least be noted somehow, or possibly even changed? Just asking.... Radphilosophe1 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think, you are right. This conclusion contradicts to commonly accepted numbers, and I think it should be removed. Any objections? Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)