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

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

message: I would like to move this page so as to avoid confusion with the Eastern Front in World War I.  Is "Eastern Front (WW2)" acceptable? Oberiko 14:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got an edit conflict saving my naming rationale... Of the various names, "Eastern Front" is by far the most common in English sources, and although there have been many eastern fronts, this is by far the biggest of all and could be said to "own" the term. Also, of the dozen-odd links to the term from existing WP articles, every one expected to link to this one. So the usual thing to do is to let this one be "Eastern Front" by itself, and add a note in italics to the top linking to Eastern Front (World War I). See Thomas Mann for something similar that I did just yesterday.
Why does there need to be a separate article at all? There is nothing in this article which does not already appear in the main WW2 articles. Adam 22:31, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Hey, I can't spend every minute of the day on Wikipedia! :-) This article is the right place for the more detailed description of the campaigns that would be excessive detail for the already-too-long WWII article. Somewhat of a placeholder right now, but destined to expand - surely the largest and bitterest struggle of the war deserves more than three paragraphs, eh? Stan 06:20, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Move page to Eastern Front (WW2)

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

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

message: I think that the section Historiography needs attention.
:As V-E Day came, Allied forces in Western Europe [not including Italy] consisted of 4 ½ million men, including 9 armies (5 of them American—one of which, the Fifteenth, saw action only at the last), 23 corps, 91 divisions (61 of them American), 6 tactical air commands (4 American), and 2 strategic air forces (1 American). The Allies had 28,000 combat aircraft, of which 14,845 were American, and they had brought into Western Europe more than 970,000 vehicles and 18 million tons of supplies. At the same time they were achieving final victory in Italy with 18 divisions (7 of them American). 
--Philip Baird Shearer 13:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historiography 

message: The following was contributed by 161.142.96.218. I think the proposal would need considerable editing to fit into the article, and I do not have the required time right now. Reading the contribution, I wonder if it maybe was rather thought of as an introduction to the article on Operation Barbarossa. In any case, the text would need serious work with regard to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
:The decision to go eastwards had been made partly because of Britain's surprisingly stubborn resistance in the Western theatre, and partly because the Nazi government harboured (credible) suspicions of the Kremlin's ominous military actions since 1939. Hitler had long considered invading the U.S.S.R., even before he had launched his concentrated campaign against Britain. He had a morbid fear and rabid hatred of Communism and vowed to quash its primary champion once and for all.
:Furthermore, when the Germans were busy overrunning France in June 1940, Stalin had already seized the opportunity to gobble up the Baltic States (old German territory which Hitler had hoped to re-annex into his Reich). Later on, again without notifying Hitler, the Soviet government made demands on Romania to hand over Bessarabia. This brought the Soviets closer to the precious oilfields vital to feed the German war machine.
:Hitler waged war on the Soviet Union against the grave misgivings of his generals, but his ego refused to listen. When the High Command argued that it would mean a two-front war, he retorted that they could not risk defeating Britain first as long as Soviet Russia remained a threat at the "back door".
:Thus the grand scheme was carried out on an early June morning in 1941. The two-front war, which Hitler himself originally condemned, but later brought upon himself, had begun — with fatal consequences for his Thousand-Year Reich.
--Ruhrjung 08:26, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
* The decision analysis is wrong. Britian's resisance was not a reason for going East.
* "Nazi government harboured (credible) suspicions of the Kremlin's ominous military actions since 1939" LOL
* The "gobble up the Baltic States" was agreed in treaty with the Germans!
* Don't know about the Rumania bit.
* 2 fronts. Did he say that?
* Last paragraph would do without the first sentence. Philip Baird Shearer 18:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed background section 

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

message: #Halibutt 15:14, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
#Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Patriotic War

message: In the page "Eastern Front (WWII)" at item 5 "casulties" one can read:
By most estimates some 4 million Axis troops and 11 million Soviet troops fell in battle or died as POWs.
In the page "World War II casualties" at the item Axis soldiers killed one can read:
Germany: 3,500,000 (includes Austrians and Sudeten Germans in German Army as well as other nationalities forced to join the Wehrmacht)
If 3,500,000 Germans soldiers died in WWII and 4 million Axis troops died on the eastern front,
who were the 500,000 non German Axis soldiers killed on the eastern front? :-)
Seriously, one of those two numbers ought to be incorrect. I don't know which one.
Remember "German" and "Axis" were not the same. German deaths were 3.5 million BUT Axis(German, Romanian, Italian, Bulgarian, Austrian etc.) deaths were 4 million. By the way majority of credible sources, Western and Eastern, agree that the Soviet Union(not just Russia!) lost 20 million civilians so that would mean the other 7-8 million Soviet deaths had to be Red Army personel. It was impossible for the Red Army to lose 12 million soldiers as Stalin only mobilized 10-11 million soldiers.--Secret Agent Man 03:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: --Johan Magnus 21:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes you have a point but some figures are ridiculous. The USSR lost more Red Army troops than civilians? Like I said, some claims are too far fetched to believe.--Secret Agent Man 03:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casulties on the eastern front (WWII) 

message: This article really needs to be weaned a bit from the German POV.  It reads mostly like a German campaign history.  We need to give equal detail to the Soviet formations, plans, commanders, etc., as to the Germans. —Tkinias 09:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. Mikkalai 21:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  German POV 

message: I guess Ilya Ehrenburg, the Russian propoganda minister, never told the Red Army on approach to Germany
"Violently break the racial pride of the German woman. Ravish them as booty."
:Original source, please. Mikkalai 21:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soveits discouraged rape????? 

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

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

message: I think it would be easier to structure and segment this article if we had definitive phases to go by.  Are there any official/well-known campaigns within the Axis-Soviet War?  Asides from Barbarossa, Bagration and possibly Kursk, I don't really see any.  (For example, after Barbarossa, what is the generally accepted name for the phase of the war that next occurred?) Oberiko 17:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oberiko you might like to look at Talk:Prague Offensive --Philip Baird Shearer 12:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: Are there any objections to moving this page to Eastern Front (World War II)? The article dealing with the Eastern Front during the First World War is at Eastern Front (World War I), and besides, "World War II" is more formal than just "WWII". DO'Иeil 08:59, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Maybe we don't need to consider the degree of formality that much for what we put in disambiguation parentheses? --Johan Magnus 09:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that this is such, and moved it. IIRC, there's a naming convention that says we should expand acronyms in those places. --Joy [shallot] 02:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now I saw that it was just that one (EF/WWI) that was expanded fully... but I moved the rest to follow suit now that I was at it. You guys figure it out which is best in the long run, just keep it consistent. --Joy [shallot] 02:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the page to "Eastern Front (World War II)" 

message: It would be nice to rename this article to make way for an article on the whole Eastern Front of World War II, perhaps along the lines of Eastern Front (WWII)/Rewrite. The previous attempt to rename to Great Patriotic War failed, but maybe some other name would be acceptable.
*The BBC uses Soviet-German War .
*Russo-German War is marginally more popular on Google, but it's ambiguous with other Russo-German wars and ignores the participation of the non-Russian republics.
*Axis-Soviet War is rare on Google, but it indicates the participation of Italy, Hungary, and Rumania.
*Other names?
Gdr 22:59, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
:I would avoid Axis-Soviet War since Japan had a non-aggression treaty with Russia, meaning it wasn't really the Axis who were at war with the Soviets.  Soviet-German war seems to me to be the most accurate to me.  
:Could I recommed that you use the name "Eastern European Theatre of World War II" for an article on all combat east of Germany?  It would be quite unambigious and line up with our other "...Theatre of World War II" articles and categories. Oberiko 00:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming 

message: It would be nice to include the refrences in this link to the Eastern Front into this article particularly the fact that on  18 Oct 44 Soviet troops cross the Norwegian frontier. Anyone like to do it? Philip Baird Shearer 17:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern Front 44,45