Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:16, 12 May 2012

	Eastern Front (World War II) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 11, 2009 Peer review Reviewed January 1, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eastern Front (World War II) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Pbneutral

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / Balkan / European / German / Italian / Polish / Russian & Soviet / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force German military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) Polish military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Military Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hungary High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Eastern Front page were merged into Eastern Front (World War II). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Information about importance of the Eastern Front Part II

In the other discussion, Paul Sibert stated the following:

"Secondly, the statement "But most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least." is not correct. For instance, such a reputable scholar as David Glantz believes that the victory was possible, although it would be more costly. The reason for that was simple: the USSR won the most decisive battles, the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, virtually alone, because no considerable military of economic aid from the West had been provided by that moment. After Stalingrad, it was impossible for Germany to win (just to make separate peace with the USSR)."

I will start with the naval war:

Any consideration for the naval blockade Germany was suffering from the Western Allies? We have a detailed article about it and it's consequences: http://en.wikipedia.org/Blockade_of_Germany_(1939%E2%80%931945)

It's certain that Germany would present itself a much more stronger enemy if the blockade didn't existed. Much more stronger industrially than the USSR, which despite all the Lend-lease, bombing and divertion of German resources in several areas, was still matched in aircraft and armored vehicle production by Germany in 1944.

And about the U-boat production, consequence of the blockade, the Germans built over 1,000 U-boats during the war because it. Each U-boat cost 5 million marks to build. A Panther tank cost 117 thousand marks. That means about 40,000 German tanks were not built so that the Germans could wage the war in the Atlantic. 40,000 Panthers, or resources from them directed in other areas could not have made a difference if the Germans were only in the East?

Air war:

Luftwaffe losses East/West:

4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

Allied Bombing:

The impact of bombing on German morale was significant according to Professor John Buckley. Around a third of the urban population under threat of bombing had no protection at all. Some of the major cities saw 55-60 percent of dwellings destroyed. Mass evacuations were a partial answer for six million civilians, but this had a severe impact on morale as German families were split up to live in difficult conditions. By 1944 absenteeism rates of 20-25 percent were not unusual and in post-war analysis 91 percent of civilians stated bombing was the most difficult hardship to endure and was the key factor in the collapse of their own morale. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the bombing was not stiffening morale but seriously depressing it; fatalism, apathy, defeatism were apparent in bombed areas. The Luftwaffe was blamed for not warding off the attacks and confidence in the Nazi regime fell by 14 percent. Some 75 percent of Germans believed the war was lost in the spring of 1944, owing to the intensity of the bombing.

Buckley argues the German war economy did indeed expand significantly following Albert Speer’s appointment as Reichsminister of Armaments, "but it is spurious to argue that because production increased then bombing had no real impact". But the bombing offensive did do serious damage to German production levels. German tank and aircraft production, though reached new records in production levels in 1944, was in particular one-third lower than planned. In fact, German aircraft production for 1945 was planned at 80,000, "which gives an idea of direction Erhard Milch and the German planners were pushing", "unhindered by Allied bombing German production would have risen far higher.

Note of mine: the author is very correct in the last line. Even more because the Germans dispersed many plants due to the bombing, which affected their capability with significance. This would not be the case with war only in the East. And any effort in strategical bombing from the Soviets would have drastical resources, since it would take large resources from other areas and their outdated bombers would suffer even more losses in the Germans hands. I belive it would be more easy for the Germans deploy an strategical bombing in the Soviet industry in this scenario than vice versa. The Luftwaffe would have the required time and resources to develop and produce aircraft such as the He 177 up to the task.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

More about bombing, from the RAF's Bomber Command:

By January 1943 some 1,000 Luftwaffe night fighters were committed to the defence of the Reich – mostly twin engined Me 110 and Ju 88. Most critically, by September 1943, 8,876 of the deadly, dual purpose 88 mm guns were also defending the homeland with a further 25,000 light flak guns – 20/37 mm. The 88mm gun was an effective AA weapon, it was a deadly destroyer of tanks and lethal against advancing infantry. These weapons would have done much to augment German anti-tank defences on the Russian front.

To man these weapons the flak regiments in Germany required some 90,000 fit personnel, and a further 1 million were deployed in clearing up and repairing the vast bomb-damage caused by the RAF attacks. To put this into perspective General Erwin Rommel's German forces defending Normandy in 1944 comprised 50,000 men, and their resistance caused the Western Allies grave problems.

This diversion to defensive purposes of German arms and manpower was an enormous contribution made by RAF Bomber Command to winning the war. By 1944 the bombing offensive was costing Germany 30% of all artillery production, 20% of heavy shells, 33% of the output of the optical industry for sights and aiming devices and 50% of the country's electro-technical output which had to be diverted to the anti-aircraft role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/RAF_Bomber_Command

Lend-Lease aircraft:

Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers, and 16-23% of all fighters (numbers vary depending on calculation methods), and 29% of all naval aircraft. In some AF commands and fronts the proportion of Lend-Lease aircraft was even higher: of the 9.888 fighters delivered to the air defense (PVO) fighter units in 1941-45 6.953 (or over 70%!) were British or American. In the AF of the Karelian front lend-lease aircraft amounted to about two-thirds of all combat aircraft in 1942-43, practically all torpedo bombers of the naval air forces were A-20G Bostons in 1944-45etc.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...deliveries.htm

A look about the early war help the Russians received from the British in 1941 is of worth: http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

The critical LL aviation fuel supply is another thing: http://www.oilru.com/or/47/1006/

A German perspective of the air war in both fronts: http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1974/may-jun/collins.html

What is my point with all this? prove that in WWII all was interconnected. And everything I'm providing must be analized in a cumulative matter, not individually. When Paul Sibert tried to argue about the capability of the Soviets to defeat the Germans alone, and by citing Glantz, an author with doubtful personal conclusions, which, among other things, don't explain how the Soviets would defeat all the Luftwaffe and thousands of Panther and Tiger tanks with abundance of fuel in such a scenario, he is only showing his lack of global view of a GLOBAL conflict. Not that this would be necessarily impossible, but certainly would not be something easily predictable, and even less by the superficial logic he used. In the same way, it would not be impossible for the Western Allies defeat Germany alone. If Germany had conquered the USSR, then the things would be really complicated, since it would have a "gold mine". But, as already mentioned, the non presence of the naval blockade of the Western Allies would be a gold mine from Germany as well. To have a favourable chance of at least sign a favourable peace in the East.

Desconsideration of the Japanese side is another serious mistake, since the Japanese only attacked the Western colonies in the Pacific because the British and the Americans were involved in the war in Europe. They only entered in southern Indochina by this reason. It's quiet probable that the Japanese Empire would attack the Soviets if there were not tensions between the US and Germany. This would only complicate the Soviet situation even further. And there's also the Italians to be add in the equation.

There are many more factors I didn't mentioned. This article only shows that the war was decided in the East, like if everything happened there and regardless of the other fronts would happen in the same way. As it's name emplies, the conflict was global, and try put the Western Allies as secondary participants is totally against Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality. Glantz is not neutral, he himself claims his goal is put light in the Soviet Union, and we should provide neutrality here.

To conclude my reasoning; people mostly considerate only the ground war as vital. Planes don't receive much consideration. But, a strong Luftwaffe in Stalingrad for example, could have avoided the massive casualities the Axis suffered there. Massive casualities in Kursk and Bagration could have been avoided as well, with maybe the Soviets suffering unsustainable losses. This puts the nail in the head of the casualities argument for this scenario, and even more if combined with other factors such as massive German armored divisions due to avaliability of oil to adequately train the crews and expand the arm. Casualities not occur for nothing, and the casualities in the East for both sides occured for several reasons, and such several reasons were in great part about the global conflict in which the Eastern Front was part of. My suggestion: put the importance of the Eastern Front in the same way of the book War, From Ancient Egypt to Iraq, from the DK publishing. This book let's very clear that the Soviets sustained most of the land warfare against the Axis, a fact, letting the individual contributions of the Allies separeted in order to the reader draw it's own conclusions. The book is an enclyclopedia of wars, and this only boost his credit for provide information like it in my view.

To confirm from two famous Russian and Western historians that this is an open subject: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508901.stm

An article by Richard Overy, supporting his view of above and going in the same points as me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtml

Overy's words:

"Yet without Soviet resistance and reform, American rearmament and economic mobilisation, and western air power, the ability of the three major allies to wear down German and Japanese resistance would have been highly questionable."

Marcelo Jenisch (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Should associated belligerents get such prominence?

Would it not be better to have Germany and the SOviet Union shown with much larger flags and other nations should somehow with smaller writing? Over ninety percent of those who fought and died were surely from these nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.248.234.210 (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? The casualities of the Germans and Soviets were direct consequence of their allies, which you considerate "less important". It was a World War after all. Marcelo Jenisch (talk)

It was not the WWII, just one of its theatres (although the major one), and Germany and the USSR played overwhelmingly decisive roles there. It was a Soviet-German war, and other participants played just auxiliary role there. Therefore, this proposal seems quite reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Matter of personal view. The Romanians and Italians for example, were in Stalingrad for something: lack of German troops. In a situation such as this one, they were not just "auxiliary troops" (i.e without them, the things could have happaned much differently). Such "auxilary troops" that were protecting the flanks that were the decisive factor in the Soviet victory. Personally, I would not considerate them irrelevant. This should be let for the readers to drawn their own conclusions.

Ah, I will have to ask to Paul Siebert and many people here: what is the teamwork concept in your views? Historians love to argue that the Allies would be in trouble if the Soviet Union was defeated, but they rarely mention what could have happened to the Soviets if Britain had accepted peace in 1940. Alternatively, what the Italians, Japanese and other Axis countries did to allow Hitler wage war in the East like he did was equally vital for German conduct of the war. I think everyone understands what is a teamwork in personal life, so I don't understand why to do this in history. In the same way a friend would not like to be excluded from the credits in a teamwork, because he or she "was not important", do this with the other Allied and Axis nations in WWII is also not fair. The conflict was a GLOBAL one not for nothing. Marcelo Jenisch (talk)

(Again, please format your posts in accordance with our WP:TPYES guidelines. I cannot do that for you every time). Whereas it is correct that The WWII was a global conflict, EF was not: by and large it was the Soviet-German war, and the fact that other Allies or Japan had been heavily involved in other theatres does not change this fact. Again, thin is the Eastern Front talk page, not the WWII talk page, and you should have to understand that. The fact that more than 80% of European Axis troops had been involved in the EF during the Battle of El Alamein does not make the USSR a participant of this battle. Similarly, the fact that the UK fought in Africa or Italy does not make it a EF belligerent. The British or French flags are shown in the infobox only due to the fact that very small British or French units directly participated in the EF hostilities during some periods of time, and these contributions are simply incomparable with that of the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to do nothing for me, and I don't want you to do.

And 80% of the Axis ARMIES were involved in the East. Armies are one thing, Air Force and Navy are so vital as armies.

And I'm in the Eastern Front subject Paul Siebert, you that are not in the WORLD War II scope. Your comparison of Africa that is not fair. Why? It was a WORLD WAR! You don't want to accept this, you don't want to accept that Britain, America and the Soviets were fighting the same enemy in Europe: European Axis, and were also under influence from the Japanese in the Pacific and in Asia. You talk too much about numbers, while I talk about possible consequences if the "irrelevant" factors you mentioned were not present. You still didn't answered me how the Soviets would "likely" defeat the Axis alone. In the other discussion, you just presented an irrealistic argument for this that because historically the Soviets inflicted more casualities in the Axis armies historically, they would repeat this. No consideration was given for the naval blockade, the U-boat construction, the bombing, the Lend-Lease and everything else, and in a cumulative manner!

About the flags, answer me: if there was not comparison of the German Allies, why they were at Stalingrad? Germany would wage war like it did in the East if Italy was not in the Mediterranean taking valuable resources from the Western Allies? Marcelo Jenisch (talk)

(edit conflict)(I am not doing anything for you, I am doing what our guidelines require. Please, obey our guidelines, because otherwise you turn the talk page into a mess, unreadable by others. If you want a respect, please show respect to others).

The Navy was totally useless in land battles, so this argument is irrelevant. The distraction of Luftwaffe from the Eastern Front was highly instrumental, however, this story is a subject of quite different article. By the way, although a lion's share of land forces was located in the East, and this circumstances had dramatic effect on the course of the Western Front events, the USSR has not been listed among WF belligerents at all, and this is correct, because it made no direct contribution. Following your logic, we should list the USSR as a belligerent in all articles about African and West Europe WWII battles, because the outcome of all of them had been dramatically affected by the indirect role of the USSR. However, we do not do that, and this is correct: only directly involved parties are listed in the infobox.

Therefore, the point made by the anonymous user is quite valid: if the direct contribution of one or two participants is overwhelmingly large as compared to the others, it would be highly desirable to emphasize this fact by changing the size of their flags.

In summary: what you propose is typical double standards, and, following your logic, we must add the Soviet flag to many non-EF related articles (which is obvious nonsence).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current setup, where Germany and the Soviet Union are in bold and the other combatants (only those that actually participated on the Eastern Front) are not? Britain could perhaps be removed, as strategic bombing missions don't seem to be counted. And do the Partisans belong there? I would not have called Yugoslavia part of the Eastern Front. Tuva also seems to be missing. And did Croatia actually send troops, or were there just Croatian volunteers in German units? If that's the threshold (it isn't) we have to include Spain. 216.8.142.204 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC).

The difference between bold and plain text is not easily visible, so larger flags would be better.

Britain was added due to the direct involvement of few British air units near Murmansk in 1941.

Re Yugoslavia, since Yassy-Kushunev operation lead to capture of Romania and subsequent liberation of Belgrade (in collaboration with Yugoslavian partisans), Yugoslavia does belong to the EF.

Re Tuva, I agree. We have the sources that confirm that this independent state did declare a war on Germany and directly participated in the EF hostilities, however, its flag is bein constantly removed by other users.

Re Croatia, it sent at least one regiment to Stalingrad, under the Croatian flag.

Re Spain, whereas the Spaniards did participate, Spain didn't. The Spanish voluntaries were ordinary Wehrmacht solders, who took a personal oath to Hitler, as all German soldiers did, and they were organized in ordinary Wehrmacht infantry division, which they acted under full control of German high command. Spain had no authority over that division, so it was Spanish only nominally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the difference between bold and plain is clear enough.

I have changed my opinion about Yugoslavia, at least as regards the Belgrade offensive and the general Partisan offensive that followed. I was thinking of the April War and the resistance.

Were the British units stationed in Murmansk? I knew of their involvement, but if air operations alone count then the United States should be included because it flew bombing missions over Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

All I meant about Spain was that it should be included also if Croatian volunteers are being included, but I did not realise a Croatian (NDH) unit was present at Stalingrad. I though maybe there was one in the Crimea. As long as our criteria are consistently applied. 216.8.142.204 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out in this conversation, this was a world war and the Allies aided each other. It could be argued that the Bombing of Dresden was an attack on the Eastern Front, as it was carried out to to interdict German lines of communications to the Eastern Front, but that does not mean that the USAAF and the RAF should be included in the battle box of the Eastern Front article.

I agree with Paul Siebert. It would be sensible to include a short section for mention of unusual connections, for nations that contribute a few fighting men to a front, perhaps because they were a small nation or because their focus was on other fronts, but to include nations in the battle box who's contributions were very marginal distorts the information in the battle boxes, and does a disservice to readers. For example the RAF bombed the German battleship Tirpitz several times including in Operation Paravane where they attacked from Soviet airfields, but to include the RAF as operational in the Soviet Union because of that and other similar incidents would be misleading.

The battle box should be kept for inclusion of nationalities that made a significant contribution to the front and it can be debated whether the Italian contribution or the Spanish Blue Division should warrant those countries inclusion (personally I would include Italy but exclude Spain as they were volunteers), but including "Free France (from 1943), United Kingdom United Kingdom (air support in 1941) and Tuvan People's Republic Tannu Tuva" is less than helpful. -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

size of the red army and german army

It would be very nice if somebody provides a table of manpower for germans and soviets for years 1941 to 1945. In literature it is always mentioned that soviets are "much more numerous" then germans but one wonders exactly how much more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.229.232 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The table is completely wrong in June1941 the Germans Alone on the eastern front had 3.3 million then when you ad the Romanians the Hungarians, the Italians and the Finns you get well over 4.3 million. I will remove the table because it is so obviously wrong. Check out the Operation Barbarossa article it says 3.9 million invaded then we have to add the Finns and Romanians that entered one week later, so obviously 2.9 million is way wrong. Headssoulseleven (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Headssoulseleven, you seem to have very specific numbers. Do you have any sources for these numbers? Rather than completely removing the table, is there a way you could improve it, instead? Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC::

The numbers that are used in Barbarossa come from; World War II Chronicle, 2007. Legacy/ Publications International, Ltd. Page 146. Headssoulseleven (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The figures for Germany are taken from David Glantz, a leading Eastern Front expert. Do not remove the table.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You are reading the table wrong, the GERMANS alone had over 4 million during 1941 with 3.3 in the east and the rest in the west, if one reads the table provided one can believe that the axis attacked with 2.9 million men and 700k were int he west, that is way wrong. Please recheck your book and see for your self, and then when you factor in the 500k Romanians, the 500k Hungarians, the 450K Finns and the 100K+ Italians you get a much larger number, also the book used in the Barbarossa page is from 2007 Headssoulseleven (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

For 1941, Glantz's figures are as follows: Axis total 3,767,000; 3,117,000 German; 900,000 (in the west). If you have alternative figures for the whole campaign (similar to those currently in the article), please, share with us.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am now certain you are reading Glantz wrong, sorry to rain on your parade and your graph is very nice and all that but you are wrong. The Germans alone and only the Germans invaded with 3.3 million Germans in June 1941 then there were about 700-800k Germans in France, Germany, Norway etc in total, then we have the Finns who during the war had 450K, the Romanians who had 500k the Hungarians who had 500k and the Italians with 100K+. I gave a source a few lines up which gave 3.9 million Axis invading in 1941 from the Barbarossa article, World War II Chronicle, 2007. Legacy/ Publications International, Ltd. Page 146. So a more correct number is that for June 1941 the Axis invaded with 3.9 million or so with 700k Germans ADDITIONALLY stationed in the west.Headssoulseleven (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be right or wrong, however, until you present some concrete reliable source in support for your claim, I have no reason to discuss. Create your own version of the table, add needed citations, and, if your source will be demonstrated to be more reliable (more accurate, more recent, etc) we will add this table into the article.

In addition, if you believe I read Grantz wrong, please, explain me what is my mistake concretely?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The information cited to Glantz is plainly an accurate reflection of what's in his article (which is online). That said, there may well be other figures in reliable sources, and if that's the case we should include those as well. I note that Glantz's figures are for 'June 1941', and so may not include the follow-on forces which were latter committed to the theatre, and probably also doesn't include replacements for casualties. Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Result

How was this a Decisive victory for the allies when they suffered over double the amount of casualties than the Axis had 86.15.144.198 (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The result is determined not based on casualties. The European Axis had been defeated fully and convincingly, its armed forces were totally destroyed or captured, the Axis countries surrendered unconditionally, the Third Reich was dissolved, its most prominent leaders were either killed or committed suicide, and the Nazi party was banned. All of that means decisive victory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Although the Russians usually suffered greater casualties, even in victories, they clearly had an overwhelming victory based on the way that the way that the Germans were completely destroyed. Try looking at picture of German cities after the war; it's pretty obvious.

Anonyma Mädel (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Joseph Stalin.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Joseph Stalin.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Joseph Stalin.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Was the holocaust planned all along or did it come about after German troops suffered heavy casualties.

I've studied the conflict to some extent and was led to believe that Hitler's decision to exterminate the Jews was not necessarily premeditated but came as a results of casualties suffered by German troops. The Nazi Hermann Goering himself stated that because the jews caused the war (how they did that is up to interpretation), and because hundreds of thousands of German troops had died in it, some kind of retaliation was needed against the Jewish people while beforehand, concentration camps, deportation and ghettos were seen as enough. RhymeNero (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Germany articles
• High-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• C-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• C-Class Italian military history articles
• Italian military history task force articles
• C-Class Polish military history articles
• Polish military history task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• Top-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• B-Class Hungary articles
• High-importance Hungary articles
• All WikiProject Hungary pages
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists