Talk:Eastern Front (World War I)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  German Ninth Army? 

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

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

message: When did the Soviet officially fought the Central Powers??? They concluded a peace treaty.... Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They only fought briefly, but it happened. See Operation Faustschlag. Capt Jim (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Soviets vs Central Powers??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  combatants in 1918 

message: 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)
thread_title: style

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Robinvp11 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  The German army in Finland 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . Chris Troutman (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no issue with source, but issue with interpretation of numbers. Lolipopm1995 (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualties and citations 

message: 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[].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.141.156 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trench Warfare 

message: 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)
thread_title:  One thing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Propaganda" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to Request for Expert Review 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Several Improvements 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Result 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: Romania entering the war 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not a central powers victory 

message: 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: . 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)
replies: text: Indeed, those recent additions are frankly silly.--Staberinde (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Result in infobox