Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pseudo-Richard (talk | contribs) at 16:41, 5 April 2006 (→RfC input: Expansion of comments moved from an earlier section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Military history Unassessed

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 not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Template:Todo priority

• Great Patriotic War/Archive 1
• /Archive 2

Soviet casualties of Operation Bagration

This article says that the Red Army had 765,815 dead, missing, wounded and sick, as well as 2,957 tanks and assault guns during operation Bagration. The article Operation Bagration says that the Soviets had 110,000+70,000=180,000 casualties. A huge difference. Andries 09:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The higher figure goes to the end of August, including a number of subsequent operations. The lower figure I have no idea where it comes from - maybe it is just for the Bagration battle, which lasted ca. two weeks and produced a very lopsided casualty ratio in favour of the Red Army. See e.g. Dunn 'Soviet Blitzkrieg'. Andreas 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Intresting thing is that it only mentions German losses not AXIS ones

here is a nice link but i dont think it helps much anyway but it is still nice ;) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_3-88_histp.htm

Deng 2005-11-28 08.00 CET

Ok I borrowed the book russias's war and Professor Overy says that 400k Germans were taken prisoners in the first few weeks so the nummber of germany only loseing 400k men then ofcurse is wrong if the germans lost 400k in prisoners then they must also have lost people who died and who got wounded. I will change the nummbers as soon as i find them

400k prisoners can be found on page 243 in Russia's War by Professor Richard James Overy

Deng 2005-12-12 17.10 CET

Overy is wrong, or has been wrongly translated. The Germans lost 350-400,000 irrecoverable (KIA/MIA/POW) casualties, out of which the Red Army claimed ca. 160,000 POW taken. Source for the POW number is Panthenius, Letzte Schlacht an der Ostfront; source for the casualties is multiple, e.g. Glantz, 'When Titan's Clashed'. Andreas 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

ferocity

article lacked the hallmark of this theatre- fixed

I am studying the entire course of the second world war at the University of Windsor. A great book that has very accurate information, that might be useful to you is:

A world at arms by Gerhard L. Weinberg.

I added some counter part to the nazi pro propaganda

In the overivew it is only stated about the Russian raips and nothing about what the Axis did, this is clear NAZI propaganda. You must show the whole picture

As the axis advanced into the Soviet Unnion they started their extermination campagin. The whole Soviet society should be destroyed, the country turned into a mega slave labour camp and all Soviets should be exploited to the max and then thrown away like toilet paper. And that is exactly what the axis did. All Soviet females between 15-25 were sent to brothels, killed, used in medical experiments or sent to factories. All Soviet females 25 or older were killed, used in medical experiments, sent to slave labour camps. All Soviet males were killed, used in medical experiments or sent to slave labour camps. All Soviet children were used in medical experiments, killed or were used to clear mine fields. The Axis would march the Soviet children in columns into mine fields.

Just saying the Soviets rapid german women without saying all of that is clear pro nazi propaganda which was used by the nazies them sleves during ww2 and that people still only qute that part shows what a big gap in knowledge exists in peoples mind

You must allways put everything in perspective

Deng 2005-11-28 03.15 CET

All Soviet females between 15-25 were sent to brothels, killed, used in medical experiments or sent to factories. All Soviet females 25 or older were killed, used in medical experiments, sent to slave labour camps. All Soviet males were killed, used in medical experiments or sent to slave labour camps. All Soviet children were used in medical experiments, killed or were used to clear mine fields. The Axis would march the Soviet children in columns into mine fields.

This passage shows that you do not possess the slightest knowledge of what really happened, the idea of all people in the German occupied USSR territories being killed or raped etc is simply idiotoic exageration. Take into consideration (read i.e Solzhenitsyn's GULAG Archipelago), that many Soviets actually supported Germans or joined German army.

And as far as Baltic states are concerned, Germans never repressed as many Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian citizens as the Soviets did. Your claims are simply without any proof and ridiculously exaggerated. Constanz - Talk 12:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence seems to describe the German attitude, but it's formed as a simple statement. This passage is full of factually incorrect statements. For example, not all Soviet males were killed or enslaved; I am certain that millions survived the war. Please try to find a book or other source, and paraphrase it for the article, to make sure that your contribution is verifiable. The situation was much more complex, and keeping it more real would be better for article balance. —Michael Z. 2005-11-28 02:32 Z

Well if you are going to have that the German women were rapied then you must put it in perspective

And yes not all were killed but all who got captured were either killed or sent to slave labout camps etc etc, source is Russia's War by Richard James Overy. He is a British history professor that has won many prices in history. Also most Universities have it spellt out in their history text books And yes things are more complicated but there is a need to counter the pro nazi propaganda that so often in detail mentions Soviet atrocity and never ever says one word about Nazi atrocity

Also yes there were Soviets who survied because the axis never ttook control over the whole country just a small part about 1/10

Deng 2005-11-28 04.09 CET

Someone here keeps removeing my edits so then i must just keep adding it

Deng 2005-11-28 04.15 CET

Please don't call other editors by denigrating names. If anything, that will just make it harder to get things done. —Michael Z. 2005-11-28 05:02 Z

Ok, changed from pro nazi to right wing In my comment to the removal of my editing one line up

Deng 2005-11-28 07.15 CET

I suggest you don't label other Misplaced Pages editors with any kind of names; this can be considered a personal attack, which is against Misplaced Pages policy. It can only cause bad feelings, and hurt co-operation. Please stick to writing about the text of the articles, the facts, and the sources. —Michael Z. 2005-11-28 06:43 Z

Ok as you wish have changed from right wing to someone, but the facts are still the same this is what the axis forces did this is what happened Deng 2005-11-28 07.55 CET

Again someone has removed it again isee this propaganda, if you mention Soviet raiping then you must mention Axis raiping and what the axis did and stop giving the illusion, this propaganda that was used by the axis during the war the axis used that propaganda only telling all the bad things the soviets did and then some but not one word what they tem selves did The soviets never so effectivly raiped as the axis but ofcurse this is not mentioned The Soviets never marched Axis children onto mine fields and this ofcurse is not mentioned The only thing mentioned is that Soviets raiped Germans and that is propaganda at its best only telling half truths Deng 2005-11-28 16.10 CET

Well now it seems someone has removed my comments and the comment about soviet raiping women

Perhaps to make it equall or perhaps because the germans did so many worse things that the Soviet raipings fades in comparison Deng 2005-11-29 08.25 CET

Someone again added the raping of germans so i again added the raiping of soviets Deng 2005-12-09 12.40 CET

Since your edits keep getting removed, over and over again, perhaps you want to ask yourself why? With all due respect, my perspective and suggestions are:

a) Consider a separate article on "Atrocities on the Eastern Front" so that the general article is not constantly being edited.

b) Your grammar is poor, making the article less credible.

c) Your facts are, at minimum, in dispute, which is why multiple editors are removing them. In my judgement you go too far in making very broad, sweeping statements that aren't necessarily correct. I am not sure it is really necessary to get too specific when this is an overview article.

DMorpheus 15:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the person who keeps removing just wants to justy the exterminations of the soviets look what they did to the poor germans the soviets are all animals

You are making assumptions about other people's motivations. That is ridiculous. DMorpheus 16:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It must be clearly stated that the axis did the most raping and the most brutal ones and just because you do not know about dose not mean it did not happen and just because you believe the germans were all good and the osviets all bad dosent mean that is true either and i will keep on adding it because it is the trut it happned even if you cant understand that

Again you are making incorrect assumptions about other people. Frankly I think the other contributors here know a good deal more about it than you do, judging from your posts. DMorpheus 16:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Others or just you? I believe it is you who keeps on removing it because it is you who dosent know anything about the war and does not wish to know. If you want to learn anything about what happened during the war just go to any UNI in any country and talk to any professor in history and ask him/her

Deng 2005-12-09 17.40 CET

The removeing of my edits are made by people who do not know or wish to know what really happned people who remove my edits most likely also believe that the war didnt really start untill 1944 and nothing really happened during 1939-1944 and it was america that did the most

So you can keep on removeing the truth but i will keep on adding it Deng 2005-12-09 16.50 CET

DengXiaoPing, I suggest you cite a source for the facts and figures you are presenting, and perhaps quote a relevant passage on this talk page. If your edits are controversial, citing a respectable publication will lend credibility to your point-of-view. Misplaced Pages articles are required to be supported by citations anyway, so this will help develop the article to a "finished" state. —Michael Z. 2005-12-9 17:20 Z

Ok as you wish But first i would just like to point out that the person who added the raping comment did so without posting his or hers edits here. The Sources are the same as before the main source is Russia's War written by Richard, James Overy a british history professor who has won many awards and one really big award. The book is very objective and talks about the whole war on the eastern front and Professor Overy has gone into the Soviet archives and hade them translated so he is one of the few to do that and to publish bassed on those records, and ofcurse he has also accessed briths, american, german and other records ISBN is 0713992239

Another is Barberossa by Alan Clark. ISBN 0-297-81429-x His book is also objective with reservation he does as so many people do he writes in detail about the german victories during 1941-around middle 42 and just breifly flys past the rest of the war when the tides hade turned.

Then we have some none historic books but just stories and memories and diaries of people these ofcurse can be clouded with personal opinions and you shouldnt take every word as fact because these books are written by people who were in the war and ofcurse no one really knows what is happeining everywhere when you are in the war you just see your own small part. But they cant all be dissmissed as fabrications of lies and propaganda.

The first and best story book is Life and Fate by Vasilij Grossman, he also writes about how bad the Soviets treated people ISBN 0-00-261454-5

Another book is fact book/biography is Behinde enemy lines, war journal from the eastern front by Georgij Poljakov ISBN 91-975315-0-2 (swedish ISBN for the book in swedish)

But still the best way is just to goto any UNI in any country and talk to any history professor about ww2 if you dont want to do that just go to the german ww2 page here on wiki and ask them if they can tell you, also a side mark i believe the german ww2 page is much better in some ways because it makes clear diffrences between all fronts and during what years and so forth.

Deng 2005-12-09 18.55 CET

What is intresting is that someone keeps removeing the part about the axis raping soviets but not the part about the soviets raping the nazis, and also this person just removes it without writting anything here in the discussion.

Deng 2005-12-10 01.20 CET

And regarding DMorpheus comment about it beeing nonsense; just because you do not know about dosent make it nonsense, just because you are to lazy to go talk with a professor dosent make it nonsense and just because you are to lazy to read about dosent make it nonsense You state that the Soviets raped the nazies but not that the Nazis raped and did much worse things You obviously know nothing about what the nazies wanted to do with the soviets or how they saw them, because you are so lazy to learn somone must tell you the saw the soviets exactly and often worse then they saw the jews but that is all ofcurse nonsense according to you the holocaust never happned and it is all jewish/bolsheviks lies and ofcurse nonsense Deng 2005-12-10 01.40 CET

Your postings in the discussion simply remove any shred of credibility you might otherwise have. DMorpheus 21:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"You state that the Soviets raped the nazies" The Soviets did not discriminate by political orientation. DengXiaoPing has a point though. As Anthony Beevor in his book "Berlin the downfall 1945" highlights, the scale of rape by the Soviet forces was white washed in the Soviet history books, and at the time he researched his book, it was not a subject which had been widely discussed in the Russian media. Therefore if it is to be mentioned in this page it ought to be footnoted with articles like this one: 'They raped every German female from eight to 80' --Philip Baird Shearer 11:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Deng certainly has a point. The problem has been that for the last four months or so the issue of atrocities on this front has become very contentious. It's one of the reasons the article is currently locked. My personal suggestion is that since this can only be a very broad overview article, the atrocities issues should be put in their own article. That article should take note of the Red Army's widespread rape and other war crimes. It should also take note of the Wehrmacht's and Waffen-SS's widespread massacres and war crimes. The facts are well know and the article should be easy to write. DMorpheus 15:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok there are alot of issues here and I will reply with one big answer

The Nazies raped more women and for a longer period of time then the Soviets. This must be mentioned. I am not saying the Soviets didnt reap Germans all I am saying is that the Axis did rape more women and for a much longer period of time then the Soviets. Also the people who joined the axis were either people who joined the SS or POW of who 1 million joined the axis. But the ones who joined in the begining because they saw the germans as liberators quickly got disillusioned once they saw the treatment the germans gace the civilian population. Also these are very small nummbers. Only a small nummber of the total population joined with the axis in the begning and almost all of them chose to fight the axis after they saw what was really going on.

(Deng 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

I dosent matter what you think it is the truth it happned and just because you want to give the illusion that the the soviets were the only ones who commited crimes dosent make that true but what removes your credibillity is that you state no sources what so ever but still you dare call it nonsense. Also all the information i have said can be found in the united nations archives and those of the nurenburg trials. www.un.gov And also since the pro nazi propaganda has been removed then there is no need to counter it but should it appear again then there will ofcurse be a need to counter. But the fact still remains this is what happned, and you calling the united nations nonsense shows your true colours

Deng 2005-12-10 23.20 CET

Deng, please calm down. In its specific details, the way you phrase your addition to this article is unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and difficult to take seriously.

Please look at the books you cite. None of them describes German actions using an imperative sentence, as if recommending the action: "The whole Soviet society should be destroyed...". None of them use such an informal register with extreme exaggeration ("the country turned into a mega slave labour camp") and colourful similes involving toilet paper: "all Soviets should be exploited to the max and then thrown away like toilet paper".

Either try to rephrase your addition in a more academic way, or put some quotations from your books on this page, and another editor may paraphrase the information for the article. Cite specific passages with their page numbers, not just book titles. —Michael Z. 2005-12-10 22:32 Z

Just because i cant put the music to the words and make them sound good dose not make them less trues and i only put that in to counter the prove nazi propaganda, just remove the sentance about the soviets raping women or you your self qute something from a fact book and you give the exact page number Also the phras "throw them away as toilet paper" comes from the discovery channle series called "the war of the century" from the mouth of a former nazi when he explained what the nazies wanted

Untill you give a book and the exact page number i will remove the sentance of soviets raping women, because the article need to be balanced not just pro german

And i still believe the easiest way for you to find out what the germans wanted is just to go to the german version of wiki and ask a question in english ofcurse on their discussion page on ww2 i bet someone will answer you

Deng 2005-12-11 01.11 CET

It doesn't work that way. If you show up and make changes to the article, and the consensus is that your changes don't improve it, then it probably won't go in. It may be true, but if it sounds terrible then other editors don't want it bringing the article down. You can't demand that someone come and 'put music to it'. Instead of generating dozens of paragraphs of discussion, put a little work into the language of your submission and cite your sources.

And if you think there's an inaccuracy in the existing article, then you should back up your proposed removal or change with a citation.

If "throw them away as toilet paper" is a quotation, then it should be in quotation marks, with a citation indicating who is being quoted and from what source. —Michael [[User talk:Mzajac

|Z.]] 2005-12-11 01:12 Z

Deng has a point, there were very many Soviets executed and raped during the occupation. According to historian R. R. Palmer, along with the authors Joel Colton and Lloyd Kramer in the book A History of the Modern World (ninth edition, New York - 2004), in section 107 it is stated that "Between 20 and 25 million people in the Soviet Union died from war-related causes. More than two thirds of these casualties were civilians; many had been killed realy in the war by Nazi murder squads whose assigment was to eliminate all so-called "undesirable" persons from territories occupied by the German army." This source is credible and the book is aknowledged among historians as accurate and is used in many AP European History classes. I think this makes enough of a point for editors to at least look at the issue and realize that there is slight pro-nazi bias in there. -rake

I added some numbers

I edited the start that said Germany lost 3 million troops and the Soviets lost 27 million lives both are ofcurse correct but it gives the illusion that First the soviets were only fighting the germans second that the Soviets lost 27 million soldiers and not that the 27 million was the total of humans that died civilians and military

So i changed it to

The Red Army and other forces of the USSR inflicted about 80% of losses - about 3 million men - suffered by German land forces (Germany's strongest armed force comprised of the Heer and the Waffen-SS) in World War II. Germany's allies lost 1 million soldiers in the USSR. The USSR, for its part, lost 8.7 million soldiers. Deng 2005-12-03 23.35 CET

Added Euro axis POW losses towards the USSR which were 1.4 millio also changed the words from "in the USSR" to "to the USSR" because the Soviets also fought on romanian, hungarian and bulgarian soil, and liberated those countries from the nazies.

Another myth is that the Holocaust killed only jews which is so wrong

The Holocaust killed more soviets then jews The axis put them all in the same catagory; slaves to serve the master race. Jews and Bolsheviks were all treated as shit and often the Bolsheviks were treated worse. And this is why removed the words "of the jews", just saying holocaust is correct but saying holocaust of the jews is wrong because it gives the illusion that only jews were affected by it which ofcurse is wrong

Deng 2005-12-10 12.30 CET

He has a point. Plenty of Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals and other non-Jews were killed. --RaiderAspect 13:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

And communists, esperantists, jehovahs witnesses etc. ;) - FrancisTyers 14:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Done Ksenon 23:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That's true in one sense and not true in others. I'll be the last person on earth to try to minimize the unbelievable suffering the Nazis inflicted on Russians during the War, but the difference between Russians and other peoples targeted (Jews, gypsies, etc.) was that there was no systematic plan for extermination. That's an important distinction. When the Germans occupied a town on the Eastern Front, they rounded up every Jew, every Gypsy etc. and either killed them outright or deported them to an extermination camp. While many (millions) of Russian civilians were murdered, a similar kind of systematic extermination effort simply did not take place.--Francisx 23:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

<anon> 8 march 2006 5.1–6.0 million Jews, including 3.0–3.5 million Polish Jews 1.8 –1.9 million Gentile Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising) 200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti 200,000–300,000 people with disabilities 100,000 communists 10,000–25,000 homosexual men 2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses

Yeah, that is a very good, but largely irrelevant, point. The holocaust is mentioned as an example, and states that it was not just the Jews who were killed. Admittedly, the Jews do not need to be singled out as separate from the 'other ethnic minorities', although it is fairly obvious that they were singled out in the justification and purpose of the excercise. -- Lordandmaker 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what happens when someones response to something said many motnhs ago, so let me tell you the probelm. The problem was it said holocaust of the jews, I removed the part "of the jews" and just left the word holocaust (Deng 03:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

German losses

Here's a source: http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

Ksenon 23:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a web page not a statistical goverment approved book

Deng 2005-12-15 20.30 CET

Tthe truth is clear for all to see. Ksenon 20:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You can find the nummbers in any encyclopedia just look it up.

If you have time just go to a uni and you can ask in the uni-library after copies of the archives it is at easy as that

OBSERVE I was haveing major troubles with the computer when typeing the whole shit if things are missing or if there are half words then ; kill bill gates

Also the nummbers of 2.5 million is not 75% of german losses according to wiki that would make them 50% if you look uo losses in ww2 in wiki it says 5 million

And what about the air and sea forces, adding the sentance land forces gives the illusin that there were no airplanes on the eastern front when in fact it was the biggest areal theater, like everything else on the eastern front it was bigger and nastier then on all other fronts combined

And you must remember that after the war many germans were taken as pow because they couldnt run any more they hade reached the end, there was no more room for retreat so many got captured or killed

It would be so simple to keep this post correct if people who keep on lowering the nummbers just went to uni and talked to someone

The cold war is over there is no longer any reason to minimize the soviet part in the war the only thing that happens when you do this is that when people use this part of wiki to try and learn about ww2 they get incorrect information and if they are useing this information for scool work they gat a failing grade

And you should really mention the 2 million Soviet turn coats alot of Soviets turned sides to fight for the Germans and many of those joined Vlasov army by 1944 this army was 1 million strong and that was after 2 years of fighting

And stop getting info from other homepages because they all loop to another home page which loops to someone just pulling nummbers out of thin air

Deng 2006-01-12 06.25 CET

to return the Ukrainian

Western Ukraine has never belonged to Moscow Russia, the more to the SU. The usage of the word "return" is biased. The SU wasn't a successor of Tsarist Russia. Xx236 14:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War - propaganda

Great Patriotic War is a Stalinist propaganda notion, modelled after 1812 war. We don't use Hitler's notions to describe the world, why do we use Stalin's ones? The SU was internationalistic, it named patriots (inside and outside)- nationalists - and murdered them (see the fate of Ukrainian nationalists after the war). The patriotic and orthodox staging ended in 1945, exactly like the Jewish one. Thousands of patriots, eg. White Russians, fought against the SU. Do the authors of this text have the right to decide who was a better patriot? The other point was probably to hide the period 1939-1941, when the SU cooperated with Nazi Germany. If you name a book "Great Patriotic War", you don't have to include the 1939-1941 crimes. I don't like to offend the vets, but Stalinists propaganda offends millions of victims of Stalin. Xx236 14:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Only thing I can say is that whoever wrote this has probably been brainwased by the U.S. No other Comments...

The war was not calle Great Patriotic War, but Great 'Father' was

"White Russian" means Belorussian, not Russian. Different cultures and languages. Could you people please try to spell things correctly? It is difficult for some people to decipher incorrect spellings. Chyko

Well, looks like it's a wide-spread incorrect translation. The original russian word "Отечественная" is much nearer to "Fatherland-protective", then to "Patriotic". The biggest part of war were took place in Russia, the aim of it (for russians) was to protect all other part from nazis, and to throw them away. So for them it was patriotic. The war in eastern Europe may seem non-patriotic only if you forget, who begined the war, so you shouldn't mix the Stalin's crimes on USSR nations with the war itself - this actions were interconnected, ofcourse, but these are different pages of history. And one more thing - as far as I understand, you mean the cases of murdering western-ukrainian nazionalists, that joined nazis and worked in their police? Well, don't you understand, that main job of this people was to find and report nazis about partisans?

And another thing, that was wery slightly mentioned in western literature, as I thing - don't you understand, that without an eastern front, without the war between USSR an Germany, nazi could have much more power on another fronts of war? Actually, nevertheless all his crimes on his own people, Stalin actually saved western world (espetially - UK and US) from Hitler? Mihail Vasiliev 15:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Title WAS: Stop adding internet sites as sources, i added one just to prove how dumb it is to use them as sources

Most FREE internet pages link to each like a big circle so useing one as a source is just dumb

Only use PAY sites as sources or school books or gouverment books because only those have a burden of proof FREE internet pages do not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.249.74.174 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, any site can put anything on the web--Sturgeon's Law definitely applies. Some free internet pages are quite well written and sourced, some pay sites are purest garbage. Sweeping generalizations serve no one.

Burden of proof is not a scholarly distinction--it is a legal distinction, and (secondarily) a rhetorical distinction, meaning that the person who makes the claims must prove the claims. There is certainly no law stating that pay or government web sites MUST prove their claims.

For my part, I'm not interested in where the information comes from: I'm interested in whether or not the information is correct. If it is correct, then I don't care what the source is.

Justin Eiler 03:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My sources for all facts are these books

Russia's War by Prof. Richard Overy tables are found on pages 155, 178 and 238

World War 2 Day by Day written by Chris Bishop And Chris Mcnab lists of causlties and production nummbers can be found of pages 244-252

Barberossa by Alan Clark

Deng Jan 18 2006 19:45 CET

World War II casualties

Let's use this as our source. Also, let's keep the article free from emotions and encyclopedic. Ksenon 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Please work this out on the talk page. --Woohookitty 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to work out revert it back to my last changes you have reverted it back to defective changes that makes the whole page look bad just look at the graphs and what has been done to them.

Deng 19-01-06 13.00 CET

I accidentally SP when I meant to FP. It is fixed now. Deng, do *not* remove protected tags. Yes there are things to work out. If there wasn't, there wouldn't have been 50+ edits and several reverts in the 24 hours before protection. And from what I see, it's obvious that what you are adding is not acceptable to multiple editors. So the page needs to be protected so things can be worked out. --Woohookitty 12:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not multipel just one and you have messed this page up, and that one acctively removed everything that said anything bad about the germans, he removed the fact that they used slave labour he removed the fact that they killed civilian population he downplayed the casulties, but I have stated each and every one of my sources he just pulled nummbers out of his ass

Deng 19-01-06 13.20 CET

I am not backing down on this. Talk it out here. Maybe some of the changes you want will be accepted by others. Use dispute resolution if need be. --Woohookitty 12:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just look at his discussion page and you will see that he has done similar thing on other articles, removed vast amounts of infermation just because he wanted to, I was the only one who actually proved each and every one of my edits with source and page nummbers each and everyone have clearly been stated he for one has not given 1

You help a vandal who denies that the haloucaust happned that the germans used slave labour and that the germans wanted to kill without pity or mercy every soviet citizen down to the last one

Deng 19-01-06 14.00 CET

I'm guessing that you've never dealt with admins before. We're neutral. I have no opinion on this matter. The only reason why I reverted the changes you made is that #1 what was here as far as the table goes is standard for Misplaced Pages and #2 you kept adding a very POV sentence that needs to be discussed here. And please don't refer to other users as "vandals". This is what I am refering to...

"The Germans would do horrible things to the Soviet popultation because the Germans looked upon the Soviets the same as they looked upon the Jews and would treat the Soviets with the same "love and care" as they treated the Jews."

And you told me that I could take it out. Well User:Voice of All did and you called him a "vandal". I don't think that's the solution. Discuss your changes with the others involved here and it's more than just 1 user. --Woohookitty 13:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about

First he did not take that one out you are wrong when you say that

second of all i have no problem with you removieng that sentance if you also remove this one

Once the war shifted to ethnic German territory, rape of German women was commonplace

Now since you dont have the abilty to read more then one sentace it is just a waste of time to try to explain to you that ksenon would remove alot he would remove anything about how the germans treated the soviets he would remove how much each country produced in industrial out put he would remove the fact that sweden produced 2/3 of the axis ore only in this very last edit did he keep it also he would remove that the germans used slave labour but since you do not have the ability to read more then one line writing all of this is just a waste of time and it is clear that you havent looked at the tables because if you did you would see that they are defective, with many rows showing diffrent colours in the same one, but ofcurse if you do not eve have the ability to check out ksenons discussion page and see what he has done one other pages you probably havent even reached this far in what i have just written and since you havent reached this far you will never understand that the thing the other admin didnt like was the way i formulated something else but since you do not have the abillity to read more then a few lines this is all just a waste of time

And you are not neutral because if you were you would see that ksenon deletes huge parts in every section anything that gives raw hard figures about production or what means were used to achive production qutas

but writing all of this is just a waste of time because if you are nuetral then the world is flat

Deng 19-01-06 16.00 CET

I can rewrite the overview so that i wont be so accurate of what really happened if that is all you want.

Here go here and have a look Test eastern front

Deng 01-19-06 16.10 CET

Actually, the material is now at Talk:Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)/Proposed, which is where it should be. --Woohookitty 15:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Btw, as I noted on your talk page, Deng, any more personal attacks and you will be blocked. And assume good faith. I read more than one sentence. I am not an arbitor. Once the page is protected, it's the job of everyone here to work it out. If I wasn't neutral, I would be discussing content and trying to argue a side. I am not. The way this works is that you guys talk this out. Once agreement has been made, the page is unprotected. it takes 6-7 days at most (usually). Please try to work with others here. --Woohookitty 15:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Deng wrote: "DMorpheus shares ksenon views about the jews so just because two people say the holocaust didnt happen dosent make it true " This is an outrageous personal attack. The disagreements several of us here have about the content of this article have absolutely nothing to do with the holocaust, holocaust denial, or, as far as I can tell, anyone's personal beliefs about anything. If we are even going to resolve this dispute and return this article to some level of quality I ask you to refrain from these types of comments. Just as an aside, David Irving is a well known (perhaps the best-known) holocaust-denier and may not be a source you want to cite on this page. DMorpheus 16:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm you are WRONG in saying that i have cited David Irving these and these alone are the people i have cited

Russia's War by Prof. tables are found on pages 155, 178 and 238

World War 2 Day by Day written by Chris Bishop And Chris Mcnab lists of causlties and production nummbers can be found of pages 244-252

Barberossa by Alan Clark

So saying i have cited anyone else is wrong please provide the proof that i have cited that person and please add a link that proves it please tell me when i cited that person and please show it to me

Deng 01-19-06 19.50 CET

Proposal

Here are a couple ideas for resolving this dispute: 1. The article is long anyway. Why don't we break it up so that it is a relatively short overview of the major campaigns and issues, and have frequent reference to more detailed articles? I know that was probably the original intent anyway, but it has grown to a detailed article. We might at least agree on what the major campaigns and issues are.

2. The separate articles could focus both on battles/campaigns (these articles already exist and some of them are darned good) and on important issues. For example, separate articles on atrocities/war crimes, industrial management, lend-lease, the war leadership of Stalin and Hitler, etc. would all make good articles on their own and would compartmentalize the content dispute into the few areas it really belongs. We should take care *not* to get deeply into those issues on the main page - just mention them. That way the main article can attain some stability.

3. There are a lot of good post-collapse-of-the-USSR books out there that provide much higher-quality information than was available even twenty years ago. We should relying primarily on these sources and not some of the postwar/cold war stuff that is much lower quality.

Just a thought to break this logjam we're in. DMorpheus 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a good call. We really should stick to introduction + campaigns + conclusion scheme, leaving the rest for sub-articles. However, cut-here-and-paste-there approach would not solve all the problems of neitrality here. I'd also recommend:

• avoid any unnecessary detailization including an excesive listing of listing on separate units or even armies as this information is unessential for this level of discussion: army groups and fronts should be the very minimal division mentioned
• the general narrative about the course of war as if seen "from the panzer turret" should be carefully examined: those interested in this point of view should be rather reading Guderian's memoirs, not a Wiki page
• make sure all emotional phrasing ("spectacularly unsuccessful", "frustratingly so") is gone - this is not an appropriate style for this page
• all the talk about personal feelings of Hitler ("he was nervious...", "bit the bullet", "took fright") should be gone as well - pure facts will do much better
• in general, as it was already mentioned above, better sources should be used: the list of references used shows a heavy (almost exclusive) use of German post-war & cold war documents which clearly fail to provide an unbiased report

Ilvar 21 Jan, 2006

I took a stab at creating a rough outline. It's probably a shorter article than it should be now, but I thought it might be easier to strip it way down once, leave it in outline form, and rebuild (sparingly) than to go the other way. See the 'proposed' page. DMorpheus 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just reverted the /proposed page to put it back in the form it was in on jan 23, in hopes that we can make some progress on restoring the page to good quality again. Deng reverted it back to his version without commenting here. DMorpheus 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleteing half the page is pure vandalism and I can never accept such a thing And deleteing half the page was never the point opf the page beeing locked

Deleteing half the page is unacceptable and the page was made by me, so if you want to make a half eastern front page then you make your own and leave my proposal alone that page is my propsal and in my proposal i do not delete half the page

Deng 26-01-06 18.30 CET

I give up. As long as user Deng is involved in this page it will be very low quality. DMorpheus 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he's bent on forcing his POV. It was an article I hoped would reach FA status, with appropriate consultation, esp. the casualties section. It was a well-balanced, neutral article, at least until Deng's "Soviet martyrdom" edits, shifting the POV to the Soviet side. Ksenon 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is you who add POV by removeing ALL atrocities made by the germans

Also all my figures are correct and have been proved it is you how just wants to down scale them, all my nummbers are correct i have given exact sources, it is because of YOU that no progress can be made because you are bent on makeing this article pro NAZI

You have not given one single source that says the nummbers are wrong all you do is pull nummbers out of thin air. My nummbers are correct and REAL soruces have been stated just because you do not like the REAL nummbers does not make them any less correct

Deng 26-01-06 18.30 CET

Deleteing half the page because you think their is to much information is not acceptable and if you really wanted to split up the text into smaller pices you would first create this smaller pices. And THEN and only then could you remove information but by deleteing left and right before you have made replacements is just destruction of information.

Deng 27-01-06 03.00 CET

"Stalin disregarded human life in order to achieve his goal of victory. This included terrorization of his own people, as well as mass deportation of entire races."

This statemnt is in contradiction with modern concept of races as subspecies and politically charged. Words "entire races" should be repmoved.

Serg3d2 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What is missing from this paragraph?

The war inflicted huge losses and suffering onto the civilian populations of the affected countries. Behind the front lines, atrocities against civilians in German-occupied areas were routine, including the Holocaust. German and German-allied forces treated civilian populations with exceptional brutality, massacring villages and routinely killing civilian hostages.

Does it not illustrate what was happening there? Your ranting and spewing lies at me and othe editors isnt serving your cause. Duplicating info in a POV manner is pointless. As for the colors, let's have something easier on the eyes- who agrees? Ksenon 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ksenon, I agree the tables are much easier to read with your modifications. The colors are more muted and the removal of the Japanese tank production column also helped. Japanese tank production is in no way relevant to the article. Once Japan got a bloody nose at Khalkin-Gol and then decided to attack the USA, the USSR faced no strategic threat from Japan. DMorpheus 01:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Read my test page here Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed see if you like it if not make your own test page and dont forget that you would allways remove the fact that sweden produced 2/3 of the axis iron ore and that the axis used slave labour until the very last edit made by you, you also would remove any what so ever mention of soviet voulenters even when i gave you sources and then you wanted to change the nummbers and when you did change them without any soruces and you forget that my graph clearly said total deaths, only 4.7 million Red army/navy/air were KIA how happy would you be if i hade added that in the graphs

My test page which i made i think is very good and NPOV atleast i think so now which exact parts dont you like and if you dont have any real sources that say against anything on the page i vote for haveing it as my test page is except maybe changeing what happened in 1944 because the nummbers there do not fit with the link and does not fit with "Campaigns of World war 2 day by day"

Also spliting up the page will be very hard to do because it is allready split up and i am still waiting for any proof that i cited that person

Deng 01-19-06 22.35 CET

Irving is listed as a source in your test page. I stand by my comment, but if you agree with me that that is a poor source, why not remove it? Do you also agree to stop personal attacks? You may not agree that re-casting the page as a high-level outline with frequent links to detailed articles is a good idea but let us see what others have to say. DMorpheus 01:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That link was not added by me someone else have added it i only support the links i have added but that does not mean i say other links are bad i just say the once added by me are those 3

Deng 01-20-06 13.30 CET

Deng wrote, "...sweden produced 2/3 of the axis iron ore.". That is not correct. Two-thirds of Swedish iron ore was exported to Nazi Germany. That supply represented about 1/4 of Germany's (not the whole Axis's) iron ore supply. See Tony Judt's book Postwar. Whoever was removing that content in the past was correct. DMorpheus 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all the person who removed it was Ksenon second of all removeing it is not correct even if it is only 1/4 any fool can see that 1/4 is alot so removeing it is absolut vandalism the person who removed it, your close and personal friend ksenon also would remove any fact that the germans used slave labour so removeing it is absolut vandalism and disstoration of history even if it is 1/4 that is still alot and it should not be removed but changed if it is correct.

Deng 10-02-06 01.40 CET

Generalization

Since the article is about the Eastern Front in general, why not just list the battles and stuff while having independent articles for those. Obviously, many different point of views are expressed here and none can be unprejudiced in the creation/moderation of a Nazi Germany page.

What I proposing is that we try to take out as many details that are not necessary to the page and put them on a more specific article. Also, any type of subjective commentary should be taken out except for quotes because an article shouldn't have the writer's opinion but the truth.

That's how it used to be, now the article is becoming cluttered and long. Ksenon 07:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm from your own discussion page it is clear that what you call not necessary is not the same as other people think

Also what do you think of the test page i think it has very exact information and hasent any unnecessary info. Ifyou want to make 1 million more pages and link them to what ever that is just fine what i want to know is what do you think of my test page is it ok and if not what do you want to change

Deng 20-01-06 13.30 CET

Deng, please take into account that your previous edits on this subject have resulted that many editors (incl. me) distrust your contributions on this subject. So please make sure that your proposals are devoid of sweeping generalizions, not too specific for this article, undisputed (or if disputed attributed opinions), and well sourced. Andries 14:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

There is to much talk and to little action what do people think about the test page : YES/NO

If No then what specific part dont you like and why

Deng 22-01-06 20.35 CET

Technically it is true that Hitler's order of no retreat during the winter of 41-42 saved Army Group Center. If they had retreated, a similar event to Napoleon's army would have occured.

Actual strength of the forces

Firstly, I would like to cite the following table showing actual strength:

{{Editprotected}}

Strength of the opposing forces on the Soviet Western border. June 22 1941

Source: Мельтюхов М.И. Упущенный шанс Сталина. Советский Союз и борьба за Европу: 1939-1941 (Документы, факты, суждения). — М.: Вече, 2000. Page 478, table 47 -- Constanz - Talk 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A table like this is a nice addition. However, it should be accompanied by information showing that it is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Soviet Divisions were far smaller than German or Allied Divisions. With artillery, Soviet statistics often include mortars above a certain bore, while western stats rarely do. This needs to be made clear. Oddly, the ratio of tank strength corresponds exactly to other figures I've seen, but the raw numbers are higher. Glantz's figures for both sides are lower, for example, but still yield a 3.8:1 ratio. DMorpheus 19:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr V.Shlyov: “ It concludes from the official sources that by the beginning of Great Patriotic war, the newest tanks KV and T-34 made up 9% of the whole Soviet tank army. The number of tanks KV and T-34 by the June 21, 1941, is known: 1861. It is known as well, that at the time of German invasion, the Soviet Union had 61 tank divisions, every one of which was to contain 375 tanks. 375*61=22.875. The possibility that not all of those divisions were fully complemented doesn’t change the matter – in addition to tank divisions the Soviet forces had many single tank brigades, regiments and battalions.”

Surprisingly, Soviet tank figures here are considerably higher. But bold type sentence makes sense. May-be we could add the table with a footnote, emphasising that the Soviet divisions were far from being fully manned at the time. The fact that these divisions were smaller concludes from the personnel data there. Constanz - Talk 13:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps at all, but here's the forces break down from my source.

Source: The pictorial history of World War II - Charles Messenger, pg. 70 Oberiko 16:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please work out the exact details of the edit you wish be made before requesting it. Thank you. -- Ec5618 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No changes requested from me. Just adding some more information to help in case a change is made as requested above. Oberiko 01:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You shouldnt add this kind of information because it is a bit miss leading

I don't see why. As long as it is properly described as we are discussing now, I think it would make a good addition. It could be misleading if the information isn't qualified carefully, but that is what we are working out. DMorpheus 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

First The Svoiet Unnion did have many many more tanks BUT only 1500 were t-34 or KV-1 and only around 700 of those were functioning when the war started. The rest were either very old or light tanks.

Having 1,500 T-34s and KVs to face 3,300 to 4,100 German tanks, only about half of which were Panzer III or IV, is actually pretty good odds when you consider the thousands of T-26s and BTs also available. A high proportion of the German armor was also light models such as the Panzer II or 38(T). The idea that the Red Army's tank force was largely obsolete is just not consistent with the facts. The problem was training and readiness, not the design of the tanks. DMorpheus 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are giving too much credit to early Soviet tank design here. The T-26 and BT series of tanks were not comparable to the German Panzer III, and barely to the 38(t). They lacked a modern crew-compartment with a dedicated tank commander, radios, and their 45mm gun suffered from ammunition problems. Battlefield.ru] is a very good site in this respect. The T-34 had similar shortcomings in terms of crew layout and lack of radios. The KV was not mobile enough, due to transmission problems, AIUI. While both of these were superior in terms of gun and armour, and the T-34 in terms of mobility, a tank is not just a bunker fighting on its own. So I have to disagree with you here. The problem was one of design as well as one of training, doctrine and readyness. Andreas 12:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

One also has to be careful with books that want to advance the Soviet attack in summer 1941 thesis - they are likely to overstate the capabilities of the Soviet equipment - see e.g. this article in Military Thought. . Having said all that, it is clear that the Germans beat the Soviets in handling, doctrine, and C&C, hands-down. Also, having large mechanised formations attacking when the enemy controls the air and can interrupt supply lines is a very bad idea. Andreas 12:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Also addind how many tanks some has at X point in time is very bad BECAUSE during the war tanks would change sides

If you mean to say that tanks were captured and put to use by the other side, that's true, but not all that common - not enough to really affect the balance of forces. Since each side captured some of the others' tanks, and (usually) neither side could keep enemy tanks operational for very long, it's not a major factor. There are exceptions, of course, and both sides occasionally put a lot of effort into repairing captured vehicles, but in the context of this article I don't think it matters. DMorpheus 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For example when the axis invaded they were able to capture many many tanks not only abandon ones but also ones from the battlefield.

True DMorpheus 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WHO EVER CONTROLS THE BATTLEFIELD AFTER A TANK BATTLE ALSO GETS TO TAKE AWAY ALL TANKS ON THAT FIELD.

That's an overstatement. Control of the field just provides an opportunity, and it can be a fleeting opportunity. You still have to seize the chance. If you don't have a lot of recovery equipment and trained personnel, all the wrecks in the world won't help you rebuild your strength. Both sides got better at this as the war progressed. DMorpheus 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all tanks get blown up some just get damaged or lose their tracks or the crew just died from a pentrating projectile. And who ever controls the battle field after the battle can take all none 100% destroyed tanks and repair them. And after KURSK the germans allways tried to control teh battle field because their production could not match the Soviet one.

I don't think it took them till 1943 to figure that out. DMorpheus 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So saying how many tanks who hade at any givin time is bad because tanks would often change hands some times on an houerly bases. Deng 03-02-06 02.10 CET

If that is true than your production tables are equally useless to show how many tanks either side had, since, according to you, they would be shifting sides hour-by-hour. By this logic we can never know how many tanks anyone had in any campaign. But, of course, it is true only to a *very* limited extent and can thus be ignored. DMorpheus 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course, many tanks did change sides. But my intention was to show strength before the war started. As for the 'good (or rather: bad) old' obsolete tanks thesis: how many tanks comparable to 1800 newer Sovie tanks did the Germans have?

Good point. DMorpheus 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Many tanks in German army were rather old models, some where captured units (France and other occupied countries), from weight point of view no heavy German tanks had been produced by the time German-Soviet war started etc. Overy is definitely a reliable aouthor and he tells truth, but I'm inclined to think they haven't comprehended the whole of it. Meltyukhov (one of the sources accessible for me) claimed that as a whole tanks of neither side were superior to others.

Agreed. The most common Soviet types - T-26 and BT series - were comparable to the 38(T) and early Panzer III that formed much of the German strength. Both sides had lots of light tanks. But the main point is that the technical issues were not the major factors - the training and readiness factors were. DMorpheus 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Meltyukhov admitted it was German blitzkrieg experience in the West (plus Soviet lack of practice) that contributed to German initial success in tank operations. Constanz - Talk 16:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

These are all half truths the and not only are they contra productive most are just plain lies.

Don't you think it's a bit reckless to call reputable authors liars?DMorpheus 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Most Soviet Tanks were obsolete.

Really? Which specific types? Were any German, Romanian or Hungarian tanks obsolete? What was the net effect on the strength of each side? DMorpheus 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Almost all Soviet Tanks didnt have enough fuel or ammo. And only a few hundred hade radios.

Really? Which ones had radio and which ones didn't? How does this compare with German tanks? DMorpheus 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And most of modern tanks that were used before dec 41 were not knocked out by enemy action but simpley just ran out of fuel usually on their way to the battle. Also no one mentions that the Soviet Infantry hardly hade any arms what so ever, there were not nearly enough rifles, guns or even malatov coctails to equip the Soviet army. Also the crews them selves hade not recived proper traning because the trainers were still reciving traning. The war started to early for the Soviet Union. And the main problem remains: What exact part of the proposal page dont you like and what exact part do you wish to alter. Stop drifting away with new ideas or new things and stick to the matter at hand.

Deng 06-02-06 03.00 CET

I suggested adding the table of opposing forces June 21 1941 (see above). Yes, there were deficiencies, but didn't Germans have theirs? Soviets had fuel problems you claim (although Stalin had supplied Hitler with 1.5 million tons of oil). So, didn't Germans have it, as three-eighths of the oil used by Germany in 1940 came from the Soviet Union, including high-octane spirit for the Luftwaffe to fight the Battle of Britain?

BTW what means obsolete Soviet tanks (compared to ones Germany had)? See my source for table of parametres compared. Constanz - Talk 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding information aslong as it is accurrate, the person who does not want to add information but delete as much as possilbe is DMorpheus. But you have entered at a time of conflict, but maybe you can settle it, go to the propsal page and see if you think it is correct and neutral or not. If you dont like a or many things please comment but do not change them. And we can add all relavent information after the conflict has been resolved. The proposal page is here Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed

The oil thing is very simple, Stalin wanted and needed peace at all cost. Even if it meant feeding a future enemy.

Obsolete means : Outmoded in design, style, or construction. Old; no longer in use or valid or fashionable.

Or simply; out of date.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obsolete

Deng 07-02-06 04.55 CET

I'm afraid you didn't get my point: I master English enough to know the definition of word 'obsolete'. The question was what characteristics made Soviet tanks obsolete (many Russian authors prove they were not inferior to German tanks). I'll add my suggestions to proposal page.Constanz - Talk 07:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all i do not see why DMorpheus can add any information what so ever havent you spent all your time deleteing half the article and now you want to add information?

Thankfully you do not set the rules here. DMorpheus 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You cant have it both ways, deleting everything YOU think is not needed and the adding missleading information. That is pure and absolut destruction of facts.

And PRODUCTION is a very valid thing to have in the text but how many tanks were owned by each side per year is very bad since tanks DID change sides OFTEN just because you do not know this dosent mean i didnt happen. And I grow tired of your destruction of facts. If you say IT didnt happen then prove IT. I want real sources written by real people and give me exact page nummbers.

I know that LARGE amount of equipment changed sides and HUGE amounts were sized by the germans during the first 6 months. Also the fact that you need a large recovery operation to get the tanks from the field is wrong because. During WW2 the Battlefield would often never be on the same place except for a few houers.So after a tank battleyour side would either advanced or withdraw. And if you advanced then all the untis behind you could pick up anything usefull from the battlefield.

Please tell me how one recovers a 29-ton tank from a battlefield, repairs it, refuels it, re-ammunitions it, and gets

You lie and spread nothing but missinformation and you only destroy, stop posting in the middle of my posts or I will start posting in the middle of yours.

PROOF that you lie is that a few lines up i wrote many Soviet Tanks were captured but the axis and bellow that you write TRUE and now you changed your mind.

And since you lie and only spread missinformation it is pointless to explain anything which i have allready explained. They recover foregin tanks as they recover their own. They might use them in diffrent roles but they still use them. Your lies that the axis didnt capture or use any soviet tanks are just lies. STOP POSTING IN THE MIDDLE OF MY POSTS.

Deng 07-02-06 19.05 CET

a trained crew back into it, without a major logistical organization to do the job. Obviously you have never been in the military. It's not like picking up a machinegun. Please tell me what good it is to capture an expensive howitzer only to find the crew destroyed the sights before running away. Please tell us how many hours of mainteance per day it takes to keep a tank battalion operational. I guess the effort both sides spent on providing ordnance units, recovery tractors, repair units, and so forth was wasted. You don't have the slightest notion what you are writing about. DMorpheus 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

They recover enemy equipment the same way they recover their own saying that they recovered nothing is wrong. I have allready explained that the line would change many kilometers and your whole statement is idotic and a clear sign that you only wish to disstort facts and give an incorrect view of what really happened.

Deng: “ statement is idotic, lie” and so on and so forth: you better stop this labelling immediately or you may end up being blocked. Constanz - Talk

A lie is when someone dosent say the truth. I dont use personal attack but he does this statemnt is a personal attack why dontyou have any problems with this statement

a trained crew back into it, without a major logistical organization to do the job. Obviously you have never been in the military. It's not like picking up a machinegun. Please tell me what good it is to capture an expensive howitzer only to find the crew destroyed the sights before running away. Please tell us how many hours of mainteance per day it takes to keep a tank battalion operational. I guess the effort both sides spent on providing ordnance units, recovery tractors, repair units, and so forth was wasted. You don't have the slightest notion what you are writing about.

Deng 11-02-06 05.25 CET

Deng 03-02-06 22.50 CET

Oh dear, oh dear... Is it that you claim the strength of forces plays actually no crucial role? That only production figures are permitted to be presented? And this 'switching sides' business: is it really the most relevant thing?

If we analyse for example the Soviet ultimatums to Baltic states 1939/40 and the decision of the Baltic gov's to yield to Soviet pressure, the figures of Red Army concentration prove nothing? We shouldn't take the ratio of opposing forces into account, to reach conclusions why it happened as it did? In my opinion, if we want to figure out the causes of war (planning) etc, we need to compare the figures of opposing forces and that's the end of the matter. Constanz - Talk 16:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may, it seems like the debate here is primarily focused on the quantity leading to confusion over the quality. Is there any way to obtain % figures for the types of equipment which made up those numbers? That should, IMO, leave everyone quite well informed. Oberiko 14:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that would be very useful. Data is available showing the composition of the figures above. For example, it's not hard to find the number of any given tank model or artillery pieces of particular types. Unfortunately there have been some very biased attempts to categorize them in order to promote a POV. For example, Suvorov categorizes all tanks below 20 tons as "light", which leaves the main German medium tank (the Panzer III) lumped in with true light tanks such as the Panzer II, 38(t) or T-40. So we should be cautious about how we categorize things if indeed we do it at all. It may be such a weighty subject it belongs in a sub-article. DMorpheus 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of classification (light, medium etc.) are they any figures for specific models (x% T-34's, y% KV-1's etc.)? Oberiko 15:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would offer the following source which contains both different tank type figures plus characteristics' comparison: Meltyukhov M.I. 'Stalin's Missed Chance ; table 57 (p.484) (his sources according to footnote 1534 -- РГАСПИ. Ф.71. Оп.25. Д.4134. Л.1—8; Hahn F. Waffen und Gecheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres. Bd.2. S,2H—212.) Constanz - Talk 16:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems like that should be the end of the debate then. So long as the reader is accurately aware of the force size and composition, they can make their own judgements as to relative strengths (with help from cited opinions of notable historians/military analysts, of course). Oberiko 17:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop drifting stop talking about anything except how we can resolve the page isue and get it unlocked. Is the page, the test page good enough?

Deng 07-02-06 19.10 CET

Tank production

As for production, my source is following:

Tank production 1940-1945 (self-propelled guns excluded, USSR's self-propelled guns from 1943 to 1945 included)

Source: V.Shlykov, “The Tank Philosophy” in 'Mezdunarodnaya zhizhn' 1988. I quoted from my native language edition.

Indeed, these figures are different from your sources, but its very likely that Russian authors have figures similar to those I've mentioned. I hope Meltyukhov's book contains information on tank production as well. Constanz - Talk 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Omitting self-propelled guns would be misleading, since the Germans relied so heavily on them. DMorpheus 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Self-propelled guns are excluded presumably for the simple reason that the author was unable to get accurate information from archives which were mostly closed that time. But still a question arises: just as many other researchers of post-Soviet Russia, the author's figures of Soviet tank production are higher than estimations by Western researchers (and the table in the article.) Meltyukhov's data: Таблица 41. Военное производство в Германии и СССР Constanz - Talk 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The nummber which i got and which is in my tables are from Russias war by Richard Overy he went into the the Russian archives after the fall of the Soviet Unnion the book was published 1997 He also went into German ones so his nummbers are exact. He also has won a few prices because of his historical achivments.

Deng 03-02-06 02.15 CET

Image:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof unaltered.jpg

Y'all have a use for this? User:Zscout370 02:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stop drifting

This is the taste page Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed

Is there anything wrong with it? If so exactly what, if not i say we use it andunlock this page. If you want to add things that is fine but dont drift away first and before anything happens; is the test page good and can this locking problem be solved. Stop drifting away and focus on the problem at hand which is unlocking the page so no drifting untill the page is unlocked.

Deng 11-02-06 12.05 CET

Also if you look in this article Red Army and then look on the eastern front part they have made a very nice pice about it and with that pice in the Red Army article plus the test page I dont see any reason why this problem should go on.

(Deng 12:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

Well, i read the whole dispute here, and by all means, i think Deng is right about it all. All i hear is his facts and how other people erase them. I compared his facts to mine, and he is excactly right. If people erase them they just don't want the truth to come out because they're too afraid people will think bad of them, well, this is just it. Deng is completely right on this statement though, why people bother to even mess this up i don't know.

User: Victory Day 8:19, 17 February 2006

You wouldn't be a sock puppet would you, by any slight chance? DMorpheus 16:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Check his ip and then mine to see if we are even in the same country. And then post your results.

(Deng 11:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

My proposal

I suggest we take this as our base. It is nice and sharp, and should serve as the basis for any minor changes. Who agrees? Article was fine. Ksenon 06:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I could go along with that. I think it has some slight POV but nothing that can't be fixed with minor edits. There were several good versions in play back in December 2005. We might want to proceed cautiously with edits until there is consensus, then unprotect. IMO, If we just put up this version and unprotect without a deliberate effort at consensus the page will fall apart again very quickly. DMorpheus 16:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And this version does not contain those figures whose accuracy I doubted. Constanz - Talk 18:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No

It does not mention anything about Soviet turncoats it does not mention that Germans raped Soviets but it does mention the Soviets raped Germans

Alot of Indusrty is missing

You need to clearly state that the Axis hade many time more Raw materials and how much the whole of the Axis produced not just Germany just showing Germany is missleading

And the Casultie section is all wrong the total Soviet Military deaths were 8.7 million and out of those 4 million died in captivity.

And my proposal unlike this has accurate nummbers in the industry and casulties.

Deng (Deng 11:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Also it should be noted that ksenon got blocked on the 18th of feb for deleting to much information in an article. And in this article he has also deleted alot of information. Maybe one could see a patern here.

(Deng 11:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Actually no. He was blocked for violating the 3 revert rule on a different article. Just means that he reverted other's changes to an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. If you look at the edits, he didn't actually remove information. Just reworded it. Different animal. It's not something we encourage, but it happens occasionally. --Woohookitty 12:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The war inflicted huge losses and suffering onto the civilian populations of the affected countries. Behind the front lines, atrocities against civilians in German-occupied areas were routine, including the Holocaust. German and German-allied forces treated civilian populations with exceptional brutality, massacring villages and routinely killing civilian hostages. Both sides practiced widespread scorched earth tactics. Once the war shifted to ethnic German territory, rape of German women was commonplace.

The art of encyclopedic language is keeping things concise and to the point. I believe the paragraph gives due to both Soviet and German suffering. Ksenon 13:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and may I say, nicely put. Since the subject of atrocities has been so contentious, I will again suggest we stick to a short paragraph in the main article (the one above is fine) and link to a new "Eastern Front Atrocities" or even "WW2 Atrocities" article to get into details. DMorpheus 19:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ctrl C Ctrl V of what I wrote a few lines up

It does not mention anything about Soviet turncoats it does not mention that Germans raped Soviets but it does mention the Soviets raped Germans

To call those people who were in the Soviet Union and who for whatever reason (whether because they had only recently been conquered as is the case with the Baltic States or because they were the remainders of those who had been through the great famine as is the case with the Ukrainians of simply because they were anti communist) "turncoats" is not NPOV. Having said that I am not sure if there is a neutral word that properly describes this without a long explanation. This is so particuarly when some groups (in particular in the Ukraine) fought both Germans and Soviets and continued to fight the Soviets into the 1950s. Would a separate section be desirable? Backnumber1662 1 March 2006

Ksenon to afraid to post under your own name are you? This is clearly another sockpuppet by you and I will report this and I hope they will check the ip of you and both your sockpuppets and when they see that all 3 ips are from the same country then it will be clear that you do not wish to make an objective article.

These voulnters from the Baltic countries almost all joined the SS and were active in most extermination squads and very active when it come in shooting jewish men, women and children.

They joined the axis because they thought the axis would win and they would much rather be the masters then the slaves.

And since you create sockpuppets it is also clear that your whole line of reason is wrong and very pro nazi. It wouldnt supprise me at all that when they check the ips that they will find you are from Germany or the baltic states.

Also the word turncoats is a perfect word i got it from the discovery channel by they way and if it is good enough for the discovery channel it is good enough for this article.

(Deng 23:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Firstly, I am not kensen, secondly I strongly resent being called pro nazi, my father in law, many of my uncles fought the nazis or the japanese during that war. Thirdly I am Australian. Get Your facts right about people and dont engage in arguments directed to the person not to the facts. Fourthly spell correctly. Fifthly deal with the Ukraine situation if only because the Ukrainians were the largest group who fought against the Red Army. Sixthy provide citations for your assertions that almost all those " voulnters (sic) from the Baltic countries" joined the SS and indeed show how they could when membership of the SS was reserved for those of Germanic origin (apart from some of the Waffen SS units -see the Wiki article on the SS). Seventhly provide a reference for the statement that the 'turncoats' were an army 1,000,000 strong. The Wiki page for the Russian Liberation Army shows that force as having two divisions (about 40,000 soldiers) and also as fighting the SS in Prague in 1945. Finally the discovery channel is not a recognised source.

Backnumber1662 6 March 2006 The article is as wrong now as it was back then, the nummbers are wrong and those that exsist are missleading.

You choose to comment a thing that I removed some houers after I posted it so I will only give you exact and direct answers.

First the line that mose volunters were from the baltic states was posted by ME so you are commenting something I said but I was wrong when I posted it and have removed it. The volunters came mostley from the POW camps you can read about it in any of your fine universities in your country http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/cdemello/au.html or for a more direct answer Rudiger Overmans wrote "Deutsche militarische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkreig"

Also the ones you refer to are those who did join the SS you say go to the SS page on wiki but I say you should also go there and you will see this

The Waffen-SS also maintained several "Foreign Legions" made up of personnel from conquered and allied countries to Germany. Such personnel wore distinctive national collar patch and preceded their SS rank titles with the prefix Waffen instead of SS. The racial restrictions were relaxed for these soldiers to the extent that Ukrainian Slavs, Albanians from Kosovo, and Turkic Tartar units were recruited. The latter units also sometimes contained a minority of Karaite Jews who the Nazis regarded as racially ambiguous. The Ukrainians and the Tartars had both suffered persecution under Stalin and their motive appeared to be hatred of Communism rather than belief in National Socialism. The Kosovo Albanians were likely motivated at the chance to fight against the Serbians who were resisting on behalf of the enemies of Nazi Germany. One year of Soviet occupation Baltic countries at beginning of Second World War produced enough voluntares to form Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian SS formations.

Also some Soviets did join with the axis at the begning and saw them as liberators but they quickly got disillusioned once they saw the treatment the axis showed the populations. Also to give even more info they didnt join with the axis as a group but chose to fight the Soviets as an own group but these people qucikly joined the Red Army once they saw what was really going on.

And how dare you comment on my spelling when you yourself make misstakes. You can comment on my spelling as long as you write perfectly but to comment on it when you yourself make misstakes is wrong.

(Deng 07:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

Ksenon has time and time again been critised by other people on his home page for deleting to much.

(Deng 01:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

Riiight, NPOV is pretty hard to bear for some, and you're bound to get invectives thrown at you by trolls if you dispute someone's blatant POV. That's the price of that. And dont forget that Misplaced Pages is governed by consensus. That's to close the "home page" argument once and for all. Ksenon 02:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

?

(Deng 11:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

The facts remain the same this proposal has many misstakes and is unbalanced to see what misstakes there are just look at my comments a few lines up. But if someone is unable to scroll then I can post them again

It does not mention anything about Soviet turncoats it does not mention that Germans raped Soviets but it does mention the Soviets raped Germans

Alot of Indusrty is missing

You need to clearly state that the Axis hade many time more Raw materials and how much the whole of the Axis produced not just Germany just showing Germany is missleading

And the Casultie section is all wrong the total Soviet Military deaths were 8.7 million and out of those 4 million died in captivity.

And my proposal unlike this has accurate nummbers in the industry and casulties. anyway.

(Deng 09:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

Deng has been repeating: You need to clearly state that the Axis hade many time more Raw materials and how much the whole of the Axis produced not just Germany just showing Germany is missleading -- but its hardly true, we know that Germany relied heavily on Swedish iron, that until June 1941, a great deal of oil etc came from USSR. Russia can hardly be described as a country poor in minerals or raw materials. (Molotov's words on Soviets' aid to Germany:1). Constanz - Talk 09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean it is hardly true I have proved without a shadow of a doubt that during the war the axis hade many times more raw materieals. That is abosolut fact and can been show in the graphs that i have made.

Also during the war As i have so cleary said in the proposal that i have made the Soviet Unnion lost alot of area with raw materials and the axis gained them.

If you do not know that The Axis hade and produced many times more raw materials then the Soviets then PROVE it because I have proven with real sources that the axis hade more.

(Deng 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

These are the real nummbers

If they are wrong then PROVE it, but ofcurse you wont, you wont probably even reply because unlike you i have the TRUTH on my side with undisputable facts.

(Deng 18:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

Deng, the WWII started in the 1939. The SU cooperated with the Nazi Germany till the Germany became stronger. We call it "to wake up with your hand in the chamber-pot". Xx236 14:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Has mediation been tried on this article. Or a request for comment? I think at this point that's what you guys might want to try since I don't see the sides moving. To request mediation, go to requests for mediation for formal mediation or mediation cabal if you want to do something more informal. --Woohookitty 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur, a mediation might help guide things in the right direction. - FrancisTyers 05:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree some kind of intervention is needed. I've been mulling it over for weeks but wasn't sure which of the several options would be most productive so I haven't tried any of them. Anybody have experience of the process and opinions about what would be best for this situation? DMorpheus 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

So anybody made a request yet?

(Deng 18:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

Well it seems that no one has made any request what so ever. This ofcurse proves that I am the only one who strives for progress and since I am the only one actually working on resolveing this issue then I will make the request.

(Deng 21:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

This is a 4 step process, first step is here Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

(Deng 22:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

Um actually it's not. You just go to either request for mediation or the mediation cabal page. I try to get away from this page but I feel like I'm almost mentoring here. --Woohookitty 10:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a 4 step process and you are wrong when you say it is not, just read the instructions and you will see that before one can do that one must first read this Template:RFMR and in there you will see that you first need to show "Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted" which are to post here *WP:RFC and here *WP:AN/I discussion.

And if you have not done so then the request for meditation will be denied as it clearly says here

-->Any request that fails to include all the information required by the Template:RFMR format will be delisted immediately. Any request that includes additional information, particularly commentary, will have the additional information removed. Parties should adhere to the format strictly.<--

(Deng 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Am moveing on to step 2 which is posting here Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

(Deng 10:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

Deng, you are misreading it. That warning is saying that any request that does not meet the RFMR FORMAT will be rejected. That does not mean that everything on the page needs to be tried. --Woohookitty 07:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you make request?

(Deng 10:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

Great Patriotic War term history

I think it should be expanded in the intro e.g. as follows:

The term Great Patriotic War appeared in the Soviet newspaper Pravda óne day after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, in a long article titled "The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet People" (Russian: Великая Отечественная война cоветского народа). The term War Against Aggression was used by the Soviet Union before the involvement of the United States and Japan. Under Brezhnev the term of the Great Patriotic War was promoted as a means of propping up the fading founding myth of the Great October Revolution and the waning interest in Lenin. Gradually, the term acquired a new stereotyped image and this engineered vision of the war was passed to the Soviet people as their "collective memory". Now the term is used mainly in the Commonwealth of Independent States (except Estonia where the term is officially forbidden and Uzbekistan which prefers to use the term World War II ). Brandmeister 00:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what (mis)information one has acquired! except Estonia where the term is officially forbidden -- Firstly, Estonia has never been a member of CIS, and secondly, no-one has forbidden the use of such phrases: Estonians simply do not use them, as this war was in no way patriotic for us; but the Russians living here naturally use the phrase just as they do in Russia. Please strike through this erraneous information through by using <s></s>, or simply remove it. The source says nothing about Estonia, and I live there and know how things are Constanz - Talk 15:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for CIS membership :)) Anyway concerning forbidden term I read e.g. http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php4?st=1109017680 ("В Эстонии официально запрещен термин "Великая Отечественная война" - The term Great Patriotic War is officially forbidden in Estonia) and http://www.newsru.com/world/21feb2005/no_war.html ("Эстонские чиновники запретили термин "Великая Отечественная война" - Estonian officials prohibited the term Great Patriotic War). Brandmeister 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Hi, responding to RfC. I've added a tag for the Military History project to this talk page. Could someone summarize the dispute? From what I see there appear to be two disputes. The first concerns occupation conditions and war crimes. I agree with suggestions to create a daughter article and address those issues in better depth. The second dispute seems to condern the casualty tables at the bottom of the page. Purely from a technical aspect, those tables could use some attention. I doubt the tables would be legible to a colorblind person. Also see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and their recommendations about footnotes. The heading "Russian turncoats" looks POV. I'm not sure what other objections there are to these tables. Best wishes, Durova 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Pertaining to the POV aspect: Deng believes that this paragraph: The war inflicted huge losses and suffering onto the civilian populations of the affected countries. Behind the front lines, atrocities against civilians in German-occupied areas were routine, including the Holocaust. German and German-allied forces treated civilian populations with exceptional brutality, massacring villages and routinely killing civilian hostages. Both sides practiced widespread scorched earth tactics. Once the war shifted to ethnic German territory, rape of German women was commonplace.

Deng feels that the above paragraph gives too much due to German suffering when compared with the Soviet side, which I feel is wrong. I believe that the paragraph adequately addresses both sides while remaining nice and concise. As for casualties, I think an expert with a 3rd opinion would come in handy, as there are conflicting sources. As for the tables, I think they should be moved to the respective daughter articles concerning WWII production (and touched up a bit visually). Ksenon 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop puting words in my mouth If you do it again I will report you, nothing that ksenon says what I believe or want is true.

What I have said time and time againt but what ksenon dosent see and misses every time I point it out is that you need to mention that the Germans RAPED more soviets and for a longer period of time then the soviets raped the germans. If you are going to mention that the Soviets raped the germans the you must ALSO mention that the germans raped the Soviets. The germans raped the Soviets first, on a much larger scale and for a much longer period of time.

As for the casulties it is clear that ksenon does not want an objective view. He has removed any mention of Soviet turncoats time and time again. Then he quoted a source that said 200k turncoats were KIA that same source says that the Germans lost 5.5 million men in the war but this he ignores.

I am not saying that the 200k is wrong but KIA is not the same as total dead. Also when ksenon edited that section he removed all turncoats dead and did not even add the 200 to the total sum.

Also ksenon would remove any mention of that the germans used slave labor in their industry, that the axis produced more raw materials then the Soviets and the axis gained land whilst the Soviets lost it and by this the axis gained even more raw materials and the Soviets lost raw materials and that the Soviets lost alot of their industry.

(Deng 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Rape is a side-effect of any war, though it was never of such a heroic scale as the Soviet gang-banging in Germany, that's why it warrants specific notice.

Please post what you believe the casualty figures are, and we can discuss them. As for the slave labour and industry, no where did I omit such information, unless it was duplicated by you throughout the article. Anyway, I suggest this version as the basis for further work, as the current article is kind of a mess. Ksenon 12:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The germans raped more Soviets then the Soviets raped germans also the germans did it for a longer period of time and that has been proven. Again and again you make claims without any evidence what so ever. And that version of the article is as wrong now as it was then and is filled with missleading and incorrect facts. But the version I have made is neutral and only has correct facts. And where did you delete the information about slave labour? A better and more correct question is where didnt you delete it. A clear example of you removeing it can been seen here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29&oldid=35671009

(Deng 15:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Please could someone comment the issue, after having taken into consideration User:Deng's following passages:

As the axis advanced into the Soviet Unnion they started their extermination campagin. The whole Soviet society should be destroyed, the country turned into a mega slave labour camp and all Soviets should be exploited to the max and then thrown away like toilet paper. And that is exactly what the axis did. All Soviet females between 15-25 were sent to brothels, killed, used in medical experiments or sent to factories. All Soviet females 25 or older were killed, used in medical experiments, sent to slave labour camps. All Soviet males were killed, used in medical experiments or sent to slave labour camps. All Soviet children were used in medical experiments, killed or were used to clear mine fields. The Axis would march the Soviet children in columns into mine fields.

What can happen after unprotection, if the same user re-starts his NPOV-campaign in the article page? Constanz - Talk 12:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a very difficult and delicate subject. Thank you for taking it on: many editors are not that brave. There's an essay I'd like to refer you to: Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons. It's about de-escalating conflicts informally - getting things back on track when they slip off the rail.

In order to do the subject justice I suggest you begin a new branching article with a title something like War crimes of the World War II Eastern Front. Break it down topic by topic and supply references, preferably line citations. This is a subject that deserves great dignity and tact. With respect for all parties, it isn't a useful path of discussion to compare the suffering of one group against another. Just lay out the best evidence you can find. Explain the scope and dynamics of each sub-topic. If certain points are under scholarly dispute, then outline the different scholarly positions and name leading authors who favor each view. Best wishes, Durova 06:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The article at this time has a very high amount of simply wrong information in it, and it is far too long. It should refer to the main pages on individual campaigns that are being or have been created, such as Battle of the Crimea (1944). It is impossible to treat the German-Soviet war on one Wiki page.

Factual inaccuracies:

• "Almost all Soviet turncoats would join Vlasov army." Well no. Most of those who joined the Germans were put into German divisions in logistical units (so-called Hiwis) or would be in Ostbattalionen all over Europe (many in Normandy). The so-called Vlasov Army was comparatively small.

Note that Vlasov army importance should not be overstated. RLA was sent to front line only in 1945 when the war was already lost for Nazis; much more Russians and Byelorussians had joined Germans in people's militias or as police forces (fighting partisans). Solzhenitsyn writes about these men in his magnum opus.

• "The USSR, for its part, lost at least 8.7 million soldiers, 4.7 million would die in combat and 4 million would die in German POW camps. The Soviet Union were to lose 6 million POW and out of those 6 million, 4 million would be killed. " - Well, no. The Soviet Union based on Krivosheev, cited in Glantz 'When Titans Clashed', lost 11.3m KIA and MIA, including 500,000 non-battle casualties. It lost a further 18.3m wounded and sick. MIA and POW were 4.5m, not 6m, and I highly doubt that 4m of these died. 2-3m more like it. Still horrible, but let's try to get this right. Any Soviet casualty number quoted anywhere is not worth believing unless it uses Krivosheev's book.

That nummber has been changed to 10.6 million because this nummbers is wrong :

Official Soviet losses:

Killed in action & died of wounds--6,329,600

Died of disease, accidents ect.------555,500

MIA ,POW Deaths---------------------1,783,500

Total losses-----------------------8,668,600

Total POW-MIA 4.559 milion combined, less 2.776 freed in 1945 yields a net loss of 1.783 million.

Source:G. I. Kirosheev Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7

This is a better nummber

Losses per Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 931651071

Killed in action & MIA-----------7,600,000

Deaths of PoWS-------------------2,600,000

Deaths Partisans-------------------250,000

Deaths Militia---------------------150,000

Total losses--------------------10,600,000

Total POWs 5,200,000

And if you are going to comment then atleast comment on something that is new and not some old old old thing.

I comment on the article here. If I want to comment on another article with different numbers, I will do so on the talk page of that article. Regards Andreas 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I do go here Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed and comment just make sure the last edit was made by me.(Deng 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

• "and to return the Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Moldavian territories in the North and North-Eastern regions of Romania (Northern Bucovina and Basarabia)." No idea if this is correct, but you really want a Romanian/Moldavian history expert to confirm or change it.

• "At 04:45 on 22 June 1941, four million German, Italian, Romanian and other Axis troops burst over the borders and stormed into the Soviet Union. " Incorrect, Romanian, Italian and other axis troops joined over the course of the next days, weeks, and months.

• "At the crisis of the war, in autumn 1942, Stalin made many concessions to the army: unitary command was restored, as were insignia such as shoulderboards — stripped from tsarist officers after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Elite divisions were given the traditional "Guards" title." The Guards title was given as early as the battle of Moscow, if not before. A much more important change was the re-institution of unity of command, i.e. freezing the Commissars out of the Chain of Command.

Comments:

• "Stalin disregarded human life in order to achieve his goal of victory. This included terrorization of his own people, as well as mass deportation of entire races. All these factors resulted in tremendous brutality both to combatants and civilians, which was not paralleled on the Western Front." Hitler disregarded human life very low too. It should not be 'races' but 'populations'.

• The Kursk section is faaaaar too long.

• A word on Overy - if the numbers of Soviet KIA are any guide, I would not trust his other numbers on production either. A better source needs to be found. I suggest Harrison's Accounting for War, or look at this research paper by him - he is the head of the very prestigious Economics Department at Warwick University in the UK, so I'd take him over Overy.

• As for some claims on the talk page. The number of German women raped by Red Army soldiers is unknown, all we know is that it was not little. Since that is the case, how can anyone say that German soldiers raped more Russian women? I can not see any reason to ruin this article over this point.

I hope this is a bit useful. Andreas 19:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Dispute

This dispute has several aspects; I will try to fairly describe them and others can weigh in as they feel appropriate. I acknowledge I am an involved party, not a neutral observer. I believe the dispute is about both process and content. DMorpheus 17:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1. NPOV: The article is occasionally edited in ways that reduce NPOV. Of course this is not unheard of in wikipedia, but in this particular article it has gotten out of hand since Dec 2005. Because much of this dispute (but not all of it) has to do with the issue of atrocities, the suggestion has been made several times that we create a sub-article to handle this issue and possibly compartmentalize the dispute. Other POV issues exist but none as contentious as this.

2. Edit War in Opposition to Consensus: This is the major process issue. Since December 2005 the edit rate has been quite high, sometimes with dozens of reverts or edits in a few days. IMHO the consensus of editors is fairly consistent, with user Deng generally acting in opposition to the consensus. While I do not claim that all other editors agree 100% with each other, they seem to share a broadly-consistent view. For example, user Ksenon made the suggestion (above) to revert to an older version of the page. Several other editors agreed. Only user Deng disagreed. Many editors who have previously been active voiced no opinion. The record shows that user Deng's (often nearly identical) edits are often rapidly reverted by many editors. The fact that several editors have reverted him repeatedly shows this is not a personal dispute. That is, this is not a case of one user edit warring with another. It is a consensus, or at least many editors, warring with one user. If I recall correctly, this page was locked primarily due to this problem.

Dont put people togheter in catagories first of all if a person hasent said yes i am with you then they arent with you. To assume that someone who changed something in a post a made by me dosent mean that they agree with you about everything or anything for that matter. And this statement that everyone is against me and I am wrong in everything I say is just something YOU see. Also the problem is ofcurse that ksenon has deleted information in articles left and right and has done that in many diffrent articles and many times to such an extent that have people have commented on his page for deleting items and by doing so creating a misleading article. Also the suggestion made has many errors and is extremly missleading in some areas. And it should also be noted that DMorpheus deleted huge amounts of information on the test page under the pretense that it would be better to create smaller articles the thing is that he just deleted things and did not replace them with anything. And the test page which I created is a much more balanced and accurate article then the one DMorpheus suggests.(Deng 18:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

3. Personal Attacks: The problem of achieving some consensus is made more difficult by the use of personal attacks on the discussion page and on the user pages of some editors. Here I think the record of block logs and the language of the discussion speaks for itself.

There are probably other issues but these are the ones that appear most salient to me. It seems to me the quality of the article will solve itself if these process issues are resolved. I also believe that the accuracy of the article will never be improved until this happens.

In an effort to move this forward

I have edited a bit in the proposed page. I must say that I can not find any fundamental problem with it other than that it is far too long and that the battle descriptions should be shortened. If that is not done, there is a risk that newer edits on the respective battle pages will not be reflected in the main article.

This does not mean there are no errors or questions remaining about the proposed page. I am sure there are some, that is normal in an article of this length, but I am quite impressed with the effort spent on the article and the attempt to source. I also believe it is reasonably balanced. I have added verify tags where I felt more work is needed.

I would therefore propose to:

a) Replace the currently locked article with the proposed article I linked to above since it is of much higher quality.

b) Archive this discussion in an attempt to calm things down, and to give those who participated in it the chance to make peace

c) Keep the new article locked, and ask for comments to be made on the talk page to avoid an immediate edit war.

d) Open the new article once we can be sure that a reasonable consensus has been reached on the talk page.

I have no idea if these suggestions are in line with Wiki policies, but it appears to me that something needs to be done to overcome the impasse. That's my 2 pence. Between them and another 73 pennies you can get a cuppa at a greasy spoon. Regards Andreas 08:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Andreas edits to my test page are very good and I agree with him and his edits to the page.(Deng 12:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

I don't accept this

I refuse to accept the industrial output part as reliable. For example, it claims that Italians produced only 2000 tanks during the war, while Italians produced over 3000 M13/40 and M14/41 tanks, the most numerous Italian tank types during the war.

Kurt Leyman

Campaigns of World War II : Day by Day" which is written by Chris Bishop and Chris Mcnab, pages 244-252

That is the source that I got the information from if you dont agree give me another source.

(Deng 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Tanks of the World, 1915-1945, written by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis states that more than 3000 M13/40 and M14/41 tanks alone were produced.

Kurt Leyman

Can you break it down how many per year and also if this nummber includes self propelled guns or not

(Deng 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

"Can you break it down how many per year" Unfortunately no'. "if this nummber includes self propelled guns" No, it does not. The figure I gave you is the production number of M13/40 and M14/41 tanks. Italian armour production from 1941 to 1945 should be about 5000, including self propelled guns.

Cheers.

Kurt Leyman

About is a bad thing exact is much better but give the page nummber(s) in the book and I will update the test page.

(Deng 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Another source:

Production of

  M13/40   799
  M14/41  1103

"WORLD WAR II TANKS AND FIGHTING VEHICLES - AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO", edited by Christopher F.Foss, pp 150

  "Eight hundred M13/40 were built and over 1000 of the M14/41"

"THE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MILITARY VEHICLES", Ian V.Hogg & John Weeks, pp85

  Semovente 47/32 SPG "280 were built in 1941 and 1942", ibid, pp148

there were of course some more tanks and SPG's but I do not have their numbers.

hope this helps and hope everyone keep their cool, please. Thank you. (Bankrobber70)

I will research this further; it appears that some very wide variation exists on this subject. For example, the CommandoSupremo web site gives the following totals for Italian AFV production in the period 1940-45. Admittedly this cannot include AFVs in inventory with the italian forces prior to Italy's entry into the war in 1940, but the better Italian AFVs did not emerge before 1940 anyway. So the AFVs these numbers miss will mostly be tankettes.

All numbers are total for the period.

L6/40: 300

M11/39: 100

M13/40: 710

M14/41: 695

M-15/42: 219

P40: 102

Command tanks on the M-11/13/14 chassis: 165

Semovente da 47/32: 459

Semovente da 75/18: 467

Heavier Semoventes (90mm, 105mm, etc): 334

Armored cars of all types: about 1200

So, a rough total for semoventes (self-propelled guns) is 1,260, while total tanks is 1,926. I am not counting command tanks, which had no gun armament. I am not counting the CV-33/35/L3 series tankettes, which were armed only with light machineguns.

However, while this is a good starting point, none of this directly translates into Italian contributions on the Eastern front:

• Many of these vehicles were used in North Africa or Italy itself, and were thus never deployed with forces in the USSR.
• As far as I know, none of the P40 tanks were used outside Italy itself. Also, most of the heavy semoventes were used only in Italy. Together these represent the best-armed Italian AFVs.
• As far as I know, none of the M-11/13/14/15 series tanks (47mm gun) were used outside Italy and North Africa. Also, the semovente 75/18 was used primarily in North Africa and Italy. The primary Italian AFVs on the Eastern Front were the L6/40 light tank (20mm gun) and the L6-based Semovente da 47/32 (47mm gun), plus the AB41 armored car (20mm gun).
• Italian units were also deployed in Yugoslavia, and these units had AB41 armored cars, CV33/35 tankettes and L6/40 tanks.

Thus a rough figure for the maximum possible Italian contribution of AFVs for the Eastern Front might be:

L6/40: 300

Semovente da 47/32: 459

Armored cars: unknown.

That's a total of 769 tanks and SPs, plus the unknown number of armored cars.

However, this number is so different from those posted by Deng and KurtLeyman that I will keep looking into it before we settle on a figure for the article. I will post more if I can find another source. DMorpheus 15:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The biasedness problem

I'm really losing my patiance with it. Deng claims in this talk page here as if German occupation in the USSR meant that all Soviet men were sent to slave camps and all the women were raped or sent to brothels . Etc. Etc. Now he has decided to present his (sometimes ungrammatical, sometimes misspelt) biased information in Eastern Front/Proposed page.

He decided to remove obviously true sentences (it is proved, clear and simple to everyone who has read corresponding pages and chapters of Gulag Archipelago) with regards to Soviet POWs joining Germans. He claims this happened due to POWs simply believing German victory and wanting to be on the winning side (actually, Vlasov units were sent to the front under the banner of Russian Liberation Army no sooner than 1944).

To solve the isssue, one might look Solzhenitsyn's quotations as support . Well, here are some Solzhenitsyn's thoughts:

• Who remembers the great flight of people from Northern Caucasus in January 1943 – and who can show a counterpart from the world history? The population, especially rural, massively going with the defeated enemy, the foreigners – in order not to remain under the victorious own – carts, carts, carts in the severe windy January frost! (Part V, Ch.1) (--- Hey Deng, how is this in accordance with your 'better be winner's pet than slave' thesis?)

May-be real reasons of Russian collaboration with the Germans originate from instances like this one:

• There in Rostov, Aleksandr Petrovich M.-V., an engineer was arrested in one the first days of war, he died in the preliminary inquiry chamber, his wife shuddered for months, waiting when she would be arrested, -- and only after the German arrival could she go to sleep calmly: ‘’Now I can have a rest at last!’’ (Part V, Ch.1) Constanz - Talk 13:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And in the light of all that labelling the USSR residents who fought with the Germans as 'turncoats' -- isn't this biased? Constanz - Talk 14:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I havent forgot that you havent replied on my comment about Raw Material production. Also the part of most volunteers comeing from the baltic countries was made by me and that was incorrect and therfore I have removed it. Also when you word it up like this "Most of those who joined were Russian POWs. Most who joined hated communism and actually saw the Nazis as liberators from communism." It creates problems because early in the war some people did join because of that but they qucikly got disillusioned by what the axis did to the people.

Was 1944 (people from Baltic states joined) or 1945 (Russian Liberation Army) early in the war? It proves again that your knowledge is rather limited and you see evertything through your pro-communist glasses, so to say. Constanz - Talk 11:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the part you refer to hasent been in this article for more then a few houers before it was removed yes ALL is a bad word MOST is a better one. Also in the purposed article which is made by me you can see that it dosent at all mention any of those things. And dont call my editing bias I very simply want an accurate article and that shows both sides of an event. For example if one lists axis casulties on a specific day then one must also list Soviet casulties and so on. (Deng 16:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

And now you claim most of the male population was slaughtered or sent to slave labour and most of the women were raped (not all any more at least!)? Figures and facts pls, not obvious exaggeration and non-sense.

Stop draging up old things that I added to an old article and that exsisted for only a few miniutes before it got removed that part is not going to be in the article so stop draging it up. Look at the test page i made and see if it is there. I support the test page that I made if you are going to complain then complain against things that are on the test page and not some thing I added to an article and then got removed after a few minutes.(Deng 12:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

I repeat, Stalin's terror perished more people from the earth than the Nazi occupation did. Remember that it's calculated that over 10 million people died in the Holodomor alone. Constanz - Talk 11:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And your idea of opportunistic POWs (not a proof of your pro-Soviet bias?) is simply a mistake, such as many of your other ideas. Constanz - Talk 16:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I did just look up

(Deng 18:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

• Im also a little doubtful of the encyclopedic quality and NPOV of such image file names Ksenon 21:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I just copied the text from where I got the picture from and the picture itself and the picture will be removed soon enough. This posting of this comment is ofcurse an attempt by ksenon to attack me and my person. (Deng 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

No, it was just to accent your style, which fits perfectly. Anyway, let's wait for some comment. Ksenon 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My style, lets talk about your style; no sources ever mentioned ever. Going around articles left and right deleteing information just because you feel like it and then ofcurse no reason or no sources what so ever. That is your style and ofcurse when you are confronted with something that proves that you are wrong well then you just ignore it like a few lines up where I showed that you did remove any mention about slave labour used by the axis.(Deng 08:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Another perfect example that you do not wish to tell an accurate story is that one and ONLY of the sources you stated "Rudiger Overmans - Deutsche militarische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkreig" that same source says that 4.3 million germans died on the eastern front but ofcurse this fact you totally ignore. And this alone proves that you do not wish to make an accurate article just an article that maximize soviet losses and minimizes axis ones.(Deng 12:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Comments: I think the main page is very well-written and found it to be an excellent overview. I certainly do not see any blatant bias in the text. However, the Overview section might be improved by mentioning the Russo-German alliance that existed up until the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. From a historical perspective, most European readers would automatically know this (and it is covered in "Background"), but the omission of this fact from the first section disrupts the perceived neutrality of the piece. Perhaps the sub-sentance "... began on 22 June 1941, when Germany invaded ..." could be amended to read "... began on 22 June 1941, when Germany abruptly broke their alliance with the Soviet Union and invaded ...". Sometimes very obvious facts are omitted by those who know the subject matter well, but the omission can be construed as bias where it might actually be an assumption of competance on the broader scope of the subject matter. Brevity is very desirable in an Overview, but many readers will only view the overview and skip the rest. I don't think the omission of German rapine is evidence of any pro-German bias; there is a link to the Holocaust, after all, which serves very well to explore in detail the Nazi regime's atrocities. Perhaps a seperate link to the details of the atrocities in Russia would serve to balance the text. The sentance "German and German-allied forces treated civilian populations with exceptional brutality, massacring villages and routinely killing civilian hostages." refers to "hostages" which is innacurate. Captured civilians were not hostages by definition. The sentance should be amended to read "... routinely killing civilians" or even "... routinely raping and killing civilians" if an effort were to be made to assuage the disgruntlement of parties which take offense at the omission of Axis rapine from the main text. The second section also contains several minor grammatical errors, most of which are minor and could be corrected by the liberal application of commas and the word "was". The sentance "The Eastern front resulted in such staggering losses and disregard for human life almost entirely on the ideological premise for the war." does not make sense. Probably a cut-and-paste error. I hope this helps, good work and best wishes to all.

Thank you for the comments. Strictly speaking, the Soviet-German agreement was a non-agression pact, not an alliance, and I think we need to be careful of our wording on that issue. No one labels the Franco-British-German agreement at Munich an 'alliance', but the logic would be similar.

I am not sure about the word 'hostages'. Broadly, I agree with the idea that all the atrocities should be in a separate article because the subject is so vast and contentious. So the question really may be 'what brief statement do we make on this subject?'. The Germans' typical tactics were to massacre entire villages, or take a small number of civilians and execute them as reprisals for partisan attacks. I have often seen the latter called 'hostages' although they do not quite meet the usual definition of that word. Maybe we should find another word to describe these reprisal killings.

I couldn't agree more on the comment "The sentance "The Eastern front resulted in such staggering losses and disregard for human life almost entirely on the ideological premise for the war." does not make sense. "

Thanks again for the comments. DMorpheus 15:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The test page has ofcurse a very balanced statement about atrocities and also has correct numbers.(Deng 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

The word 'hostages' could be substituted with 'civilians', followed by mention of the mass rapings (i.e. sanctioned gangbanging) of German women. And let's not forget that one of the hallmarks of the EF were the almost continuously superior losses inflicted by a numericaly-inferior foe, so numbers should be independently verified. Ksenon 02:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is the only one that is neutral and has the correct nummbers

Just make sure the last edit was made by me. All numbers have real sources.

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed

(Deng 13:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Is label 'Soviet turncoats' neutral? And Deng, you've been complaining of me not answering on raw material production. I had doubts about it and still have, but I've had lots of more important things to do than running through libraries and finding statistics. So, as for me, let this statistics be, I do not have time for disputing it with facts.

But now, could you be so kind as to answer to any of my questions, which I asked in the Deng bias section?Constanz - Talk 15:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I did but you have missed it so re-read it and if you miss it again send me a message and I will make a much longer reply. Everyone has more imporant things to do but if you dont have hard facts and sources to back up those facts then dont post to say that the facts are wrong.(Deng 15:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

RfC follow-up

My post higher up on this page seems to have been overlooked. I strongly suggest creating a branching article for (something like) war crimes. I also suggest shifting the focus of that subject away from cross comparisons and toward dry factual descriptions of each subtopic. Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons might help tone down the dialogue and get it on a more productive track. I'd like to thank all the editors here for taking on this very difficult subject. Regards, Durova 18:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. :-) I edited in a suggested main article into the proposed version here. I think it is a very good suggestion you made. Andreas 18:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that this proposal page could be made basis for the Eastern Front (WW2) article and the latter could then be unprotected. I've made some minor editions I found necessary. Constanz - Talk 11:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think those edits are fine, and I agree that the word 'turncoat' is not the best to use. The motivations for helping the Germans could be quite complex, and to generalise like that is problematic. Andreas 11:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

All we need is the campaign template and verification of the following: (Bagration article) The defeat of this force resulted in the death or capture of nearly 350,000 German troops. (Proposed version, Bagration section) The Germans lost approximately 670,000 dead, missing, wounded and sick, out of whom 160,000 were captured, as well 2,000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles. Also, the production comparisons could be moved to a sister article to avoid "cluttering". Ksenon 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The nummbers are from the bagration article copied directly from that article, and no the numbers will not be moved. There is no need to move the numbers. The only reason why anyone would want to move the numbers as I see it, is if they not want people to be able to compare losses and gains. (Deng 12:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree the Bagration numbers should be verified (in the Bagration article), since I have never seen German numbers of such exactness elsewhere, and I am just wondering what they cover. They do look ballpark correct though. Regarding the production numbers, I think unless someone really wants to get into it, they can as well stay in this article. Andreas 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unlock and Replace with Proposed Version?

Do we have a consensus that the current page should be unlocked, after being replaced with the proposed page? So far I believe I can count Deng, Constanz, and me in agreement with this proposal. Ksenon I am not sure about. Does anyone have an objection to this? Andreas 12:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you state succinctly below which version of the page you propose to implement? --Ghirla 12:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This one with the edits as of today. I refer you to my proposal on how to move things forward from above. As an aside, this talk page is an unnavigable mess and should be archived. Andreas 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC follow-up

My post higher up on this page seems to have been overlooked. I strongly suggest creating a branching article for (something like) war crimes. I also suggest shifting the focus of that subject away from cross comparisons and toward dry factual descriptions of each subtopic. Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons might help tone down the dialogue and get it on a more productive track. I'd like to thank all the editors here for taking on this very difficult subject. Regards, Durova 18:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. :-) I edited in a suggested main article into the proposed version here. I think it is a very good suggestion you made. Andreas 18:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that this proposal page could be made basis for the Eastern Front (WW2) article and the latter could then be unprotected. I've made some minor editions I found necessary. Constanz - Talk 11:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think those edits are fine, and I agree that the word 'turncoat' is not the best to use. The motivations for helping the Germans could be quite complex, and to generalise like that is problematic. Andreas 11:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

All we need is the campaign template and verification of the following: (Bagration article) The defeat of this force resulted in the death or capture of nearly 350,000 German troops. (Proposed version, Bagration section) The Germans lost approximately 670,000 dead, missing, wounded and sick, out of whom 160,000 were captured, as well 2,000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles. Also, the production comparisons could be moved to a sister article to avoid "cluttering". Ksenon 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The nummbers are from the bagration article copied directly from that article, and no the numbers will not be moved. There is no need to move the numbers. The only reason why anyone would want to move the numbers as I see it, is if they not want people to be able to compare losses and gains. (Deng 12:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree the Bagration numbers should be verified (in the Bagration article), since I have never seen German numbers of such exactness elsewhere, and I am just wondering what they cover. They do look ballpark correct though. Regarding the production numbers, I think unless someone really wants to get into it, they can as well stay in this article. Andreas 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unlock and Replace with Proposed Version?

Do we have a consensus that the current page should be unlocked, after being replaced with the proposed page? So far I believe I can count Deng, Constanz, and me in agreement with this proposal. Ksenon I am not sure about. Does anyone have an objection to this? Andreas 12:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you state succinctly below which version of the page you propose to implement? --Ghirla 12:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This one with the edits as of today. I refer you to my proposal on how to move things forward now in Archive 3. Andreas 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the page needs some work before it is put up as the replacement page. I don't have a problem with it forming the basis of the new page, but there are some inconsistencies and errors in it. It is also very German-centric. That is, most of the article is written with German intentions or German decisions foremost, and the Soviets are almost offstage in much of the writing. Some of the battle overviews conflict with the specific battle articles - this is especially true with the Kursk campaign summary, which differs sharply with the Kursk article.

After all the effort that has gone into this discussion I would hate to see this page go up without some edits to clean some of this up. I think we may be close to having consensus but not quite yet. DMorpheus 15:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My thinking is that it maybe easier to replace the article and discuss it here, instead of not replacing it and discussing the proposed version here. At the moment we run the risk that new comments (like my first one) will be on this page here, which I believe to be far out of date. Hence my preference would be to move the proposed version here, and then edit and talk about it here. Far less confusing. That's just my thinking though, I like it neat. Andreas 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm alo inclined to think this way. then we'd have at least a working page one could edit. If it really would fail, then it could be protected again, but let us try unprotection. I am not going to make any major edits myself soon, though, as I'm busy right now. So it's more like up to those to decide, who have really been actively editing the page. --Constanz - Talk 15:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing that should never be forgoten is that the test page was made by ME and it is almost exactlly the same as when i proposed it several months ago the only real changes have been made be me. As I see it if you put it back well then Ksenon will just start with his pro german removal of everything that dosent praise the germans and remove everything that dosent demonize the soviets as last time, and it dont see how DMorpheus can now accept the very same page he rejected so many months ago. (Deng 18:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

On the verge of settling this dispute, you attack two other people. Again. If you re-read my post above, I have said that while I don't mind moving forward with this version as a basis, it has significant issues that need to be edited. I am not "accept"ing it; I think we should make some careful edits first before promoting it as the new page. For one thing, we might want to mention that the Red Army did things besides react to the Germans.

As to authorship, this isn't about anyone's ego. Wiki is a cooperative project. DMorpheus 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Object I believe "new version" contains extreme POV issues (like "Hitler-Stalin" pact - instead of "Soviet-German" as it is called in history documents of that time, "Russian and Soviet historiography" - then the article World War II should be labelled as "Western historiography" :) etc., etc.,etc.) While the current one has much less POV issues, as I believe. Hence, why should we do excessive work to fix POV in the "new version", keep this one! Cmapm 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Object. I see that the table of contents of both version are essentially the same, i.e., the structure is the same. Therefore it is pretty much reasonable to make changes sectionwise, rather than in one big replacement. The new version has no significant advantages and a number of new drawbacks. Particularly naive is the "The Clash of Ideologies" section. mikka (t) 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, user:Woohookitty seems to moved text by cot and paste to the current location, so the perhistory of the nnew verion is unclear. But from emotional comments in the history I see that the version is "owned" by SuperDeng. I see no reason to believe that one person did it better than the whole crowd before him and I see no nessessity to detract from the normal way of work: list objections in neat sections, one by one, and find a mutually-agreed text for each disputed piece. It is not the case that the whole article was a piece of garbage3 begging for rewrite. I don't even see an expert's touch, like is was with superb rewrites of user:172. mikka (t) 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Object. I didn't like those ugly tables full of question marks. Please move them elsewhere. Mikka is correct: small edits work the best. --Ghirla 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Tables are unnecessary detail in a very general overview article. This is not a paper book to squeeze everyting into. Use hypertext. mikka (t) 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It does have significant diffrences trust me I made it I know. And DMorpheus i havent attacked anyone I just state the truth. You have critized my test page from the start and you supported an older version of the locked page one that is extremly diffrent from MY test page. Also you have called me pro soviet bias when I have added numbers that do not glorify the germans so you are not fooling anybody when you say you want a soviet perspective. All the posts you have made have never ever mentioned anything about a soviet perspective and you have done nothing but criticise me and my test page and you also have gone so far in blameing me for everything. Do you want me to show you the parts where you talk about my test page because I can do it. So there is no way that you are not going to do major changes togheter with ksenon to make the article a glorification of the germans. Just as ksenon removed the mention about slave labour by the axis so will you. And let us never forget that the only source ksenon has ever qouted that same soruce says that 4.3 million germans died and not 2.5 which you and him both support. So you are ofcurse going to make major SOURCE-LESS changes and a new edit war will break out. Therfore it is much better to stick to the original plan which is to get the page to a mediation request. And do not think for a second that I have forgoten all the protests against this page and none have ever been about kursk or lack of soviet perspective.(Deng 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

"It does have significant diffrences": List them one by one here, and we will talk. Also, please refrain from discussing editors, stick to discussing edits. Don't waste other people's time. If you spend much talk page in personal bickering, a high chance is that your important arguments will be simply overlooked. mikka (t) 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no clue what you are talking about check the archives and study and see what has been going on All edits have been disscused everything I have done has been made with soruces unlike all other edits mine are with sources that is why the page got locked the first time because I would give sources where as others wouldnt(Deng 21:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes I have a clue. You want a vote, I want clean comparison data. I have no time to roam thru endless rants which may or may not related to your version. From what I've seen, your version is worse in a number of places than the old one. That's why I object. If you want to sway my opinion, show what became better. The "RTFM"-kind answer will not go. mikka (t) 04:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edits to the /Proposed page

The proposed page still needs a re-write.

1. The lead photo caption should be Rread "..during the Battle of Berlin..." not after. The seizure of the Reichstag was not the end of the battle, as is evident from the columns of smoke in the photograph.

2. Section 1.2 "the Clash of Ideologies" is mostly about nazi ideology and atrocities. Soviet ideology is barely mentioned. May I suggest this section be shortened, somewhat following Ksenon's suggestion of a few days ago, with a link to a new "atrocities" article? I believe that suggestion has been made by at least three people.

3. Section 2.1, 'The Hitler-Stalin Pact': This is a very POV way of introducing the subject. May I suggest we re-title this "The Diplomatic background"? That would include brief statements about international efforts to contain Germany in the 1930s, not just the Hitler-Stalin pact. The section should refer to a more detailed article and remain brief.

4. Section 2.2 "The Decision for War". Shouldn't a section on each side's preparations follow section 2.1? This section discusses neither German nor Soviet preparations, nor is it really about the decision for war. The reference to the Barbarossa article is a good idea.

5. Operations: All of these sections should be shortened, and should follow the contents of the more specific articles that are referenced. E.g., the Kursk summary here should be a summary of the Battle of Kursk article, with an emphasis on why it was important. Actual operations do not need detailed discussion in this article. Most of the operations described are German ones. Much of the content is inaccurate:

• The huge battles in the Kiev Special Military District are ignored. There is merely a mention that the German Army Group South's progress was "rather slow". The reader is left wondering why.

• Neither the T-34 nor the katyusha were "new" to combat in Dec 1941. Both were used in the opening days of the campaign. It's an odd place to mention them since they were not decisive in this battle.

• The account of winter fighting repeats the old myth that the weather ended all mobility. There is a good discussion of this in the Barbarossa article. Why not skip most of the operational details here and refer to that article?

• The Timoshenko offensive is linked (Second Battle of Kharkov) but not mentioned in the text. It should probably be linked in the 'Don, Volga, and Caucasus' section rather than in the 'Soviet Counteroffensive: Winter 1941' section. It is a major reason why the German drive on Stalingrad and the caucasus met so little resistance. It was also a factor in Soviet defensive planning for Kursk. These sorts of top-level strategic issues should go in the article; details about battles are less important.

• The text inconsistently uses "Russia" when "USSR" or "Soviet Union" would be correct.

• The text uses NPOV terms such as "German tactical flair", (german) "daring strike", (german) "leap across the Don", (german) "strategic decision" to retreat, as oppposed to being defeated by a Soviet unit, etc.

• Very little content on Manstein's 'backhand stroke' in Feb/March 1943.

• Vandalism in the Kursk section - the German offensive pincers were not planned to converge on "Tim".

• The whole Kursk section is weak and disagrees with the Kursk article. Again - this is a good reason to leave operational details out of the main article. To pick one small example, the 5th Guards Tank Army had about 850 tanks on July 12, 1943, not 400 as claimed in the article. "Hitler took fright" ? Please. Anyway, it is more sensible, and easier on maintenance, if we simply refer to the Kursk article and not get into this sort of thing.

• Grossdeutschland was Hitler's "favorite division" ? Really?

• "All that was left for the Soviets to do was to launch an offensive to capture what was to become East Germany". The concept of an independent German Democratic Republic (East Germany) did not exist at the time, nor was that territory a Soviet objective. The objective was the destruction of the remainder of the Wehrmacht and the capture of Berlin. The term "East Germany", capitalized as if it were the name of a country, is used at least twice more. Boththe Soviets and western allies wanted to control their occupation zones, but that was a secondary consideration.

• Soviet casualties for every battle are given, but German losses are rarely stated.

6. The photo caption for Lidiya Ruslandova is odd; the photo is obviously not on the doorsteps of the Reichstag.

• Modify the caption but keep the photograph. We should illustrate how all the artists gave up their ordinary concerts to perform at the front and to boost the soldiers' morale. Perhaps replace this photo with a screenshot from a war-time Soviet movie? --Ghirla 06:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

7. It is implied that Stalin set up the commissar system, when in fact the system was created by Trotsky during the civil war period.

8. Shoulderboards were introduced *for all ranks* early in 1943.

9. "Guards" designations began in late 1941, not late 1942. The Guards designations could be given to Brigades, Regiments, Corps, or even Armies, not simply to Divisions.

10. Voroshilov is not generally considered to be a competent member of the Stavka; far from it.

11."Politruks" are political officers, but are members of the military.

12. The "occupation and repression" section might best be moved to the separate atrocities article. It might be a good basis for that article.

13. The "industrial output" section is good, but should also refer to the Lend-lease article. US aluminum and fuel shipments (especially aviation fuel), for example, make a difference in Soviet industrial figures. Virtually all the high-octane aviation fuel used by the Red Air Force came from the USA.

Why is Japanese production in the tables?

Which self-propelled guns cost 2/3s of a tank?

How does western (occupied) Europe figure in German industrial potential? There were thousands of French trucks in German units, for example.

Sweden did not provide 2/3 of German iron ore.

Just my two cents.DMorpheus 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

All of this has been mentioned before check the archives and nothing is ksenons idea nothing at all it was mentioned by others long before him. Japanese production is mentioned because in the eastern front article someone added the battles in china where the soviets fought the japanese after the war in europe is over. Yes there were thousand of french trucks in german units what is your point?(Deng 23:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

My rather obvious point is that the proposed page has issues. Some are minor, like the photo captions. Some are huge. They should be addressed before promoting the article to replace the current one. I see there are a some objections to promoting it anyway. Please cease with the personal attacks.

Since the Eastern Front consists of the German-Soviet front, there is no point in including japanese production. Japan was not a strategic threat to the USSR by 1941. Likewise, since Italy's main effort was in the mediterranian, it is not logical to include all of their production as if it were available to be used on the Eastern Front.

The issue with the French trucks is that they are one minor, yet obvious example that you cannot assess German industrial potential without including some portion of the French economy, the Begian economy, the former Czech economy, etc. German units were full of equipment made outside of Germany, and obviously other strategic materials came from outside Germany. You seem fixated on Swedish iron ore, but what about Romanian oil, French trucks, Czech tanks, Swiss instruments, etc ?

If all of this has been mentioned before why was it not included in the article? In fact much of it has been mentioned before and much of it is being posted for the first time. There is no harm in proceeding carefully. DMorpheus 03:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned Romanian Oil and this proves that you have no intresst what so ever in makeing a correct article just a prove german one. You say alot but have done nothing except delete even more. So just drop it (Deng 11:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

"They should be addressed before promoting the article to replace the current one": If a text has huge problems, why talk about its promotion at all? Judging from the history of the proposed version, SuperDeng rejected the idea of cooperative step-by-step creation of the new version. Now that he is done with it, I say: put it all into the wastebasket and let people work together sectionwise. mikka (t) 04:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue with the French trucks" the real issue with french trucks that it is not our damn business to assess the German potential: our business is to report expert's assesses. mikka (t) 04:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, it turns out that the current locked version has its elements of bullshit as well. Surprisingly, it didn't change much since november. mikka (t) 04:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Section 2.2 "The Decision for War". Shouldn't a section on each side's preparations follow section 2.1? This section discusses neither German nor Soviet preparations, nor is it really about the decision for war. The reference to the Barbarossa article is a good idea. -- Very much agreed. As many new sources are accessible now, different soviet plans should be mentioned. That's why I'm myself about to create an article on Soviet assault plans 1941 (draft ). At least current proposed version does not repeat the old Soviet defence myths, which have now been severy criticised. I added link to Operation Barbarossa, just as it has much information on the issue (which the proposal does not have). --Constanz - Talk 09:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Colour me unconvinced. I also recommend (since we are into very speculative territory here) to then address the claims made by Fugate/Dvoretsky on Soviet pre-war planning and how that influenced placement. In any case you would need to discuss Glantz' 'Stumbling Colossus'. At the moment as far as I can see it from your draft the argument rests on IHR (who I would not trust if they told me the time), Suvorov (who has been quite thoroughly discredited, in my view), and Meltyukov (who I have not read, so can not comment). That's not a lot for a complete rewrite of history. Then you would need to say a word or two on whether (if you can show a convincing case for the Soviet assault) this was known or suspected by the Germans when they made their decision, or whether these were completely independent. Andreas 09:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I only suggest such theory be mentioned. And I rest almost wholly on Mikhail Meltyukhov's Stalin's Missed Chance. It's only rough notes there. Pls be more careful, claims do not rest on IHR. As for German thinking etc, you might see the article on the book mentioned above. --Constanz - Talk 09:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikka posted: Judging from the history of the proposed version, SuperDeng rejected the idea of cooperative step-by-step creation of the new version. Now that he is done with it, I say: put it all into the wastebasket and let people work together sectionwise. That is precisely the problem here. No matter what edits anyone else suggests it is unlikely to find any cooperation from Deng. The record shows this. Thus the page lock. DMorpheus 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are ofcurse all wrong, It is you who has prevented any cooperation and the history proves it. (Deng 14:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

Just because your only wish is to minimize german casulties by stateing 2.5 million instead of the real 4.3 million you ofcurse say that I am not willing to cooperate when in truth it is only you who wants to glorify the germans and twist history.(Deng 14:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

That is why the link was made by someone that didnt go anywhere because people wanted to create an article about all crimes on the eastern front, and you ofcurse keep removieng this link (Deng 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Version Comparison

OK It seems that the proponent SuperDeng genuinely does not understand what I meant when I said to list the changes. Let me show by an example. If you compare complete versions, with tthe notable exception of the significantly rewritten intro, you may make little sense what exactly was affected, since some pieces are shifted with respect to each other; they appers identical, but you may never be sure by eye.

Now, let us compare section by section.

1. . Intro

   Major Rewrite

2. Overview

   Major Rewrite

3. 2 Background

   Major Rewrite

4. 3 Operations
5. * 3.1 Invasion: Summer 1941

   Small difference

6. * 3.2 Moscow and Rostov: Autumn 1941

   No change

7. * 3.3 Soviet counter-offensive: Winter 1941

   No change

8. * 3.4 Don, Volga, and Caucasus: Summer 1942

   No change

9. * 3.5 Stalingrad: Winter 1942

   Minor change

10. * 3.6 Kursk: Summer 1943

    No change

11. * 3.7 Eastern Front in Fall and Winter 1943

    No change

12. * 3.8 Eastern Front in Summer 1944
13. * 3.9 Eastern Europe: January–March 1945
14. * 3.10 End of War: April–May 1945
15. 4 Leadership
16. 5 Occupation and repression
17. 6 Industrial output
18. 7 Casualties
19. 8 See also
20. 9 References
21. 10 External links

Now it is easily seen that user:DMorpheus wasted lots of his time explaining that "Operations" section is bad. It is bad yes, but at this point the issue is irrelevant to the question at hand: which version to use, simply because in the part "Operations" they are identical. And morpheus will be easily able to fix the problems he pointed in normal editing way, without much talk.

Now you finish what I started: namely, the description of changes, and concentrate on the proposed changes, rather than on the whole bad article. You must make a choice: one version or another quickly, and then unlock, and proceed with further improvement. mikka (t) 05:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The major diffrence Is ofcurse the mention that 4.3 million Germans died and not 2.5 million, also the Bagration now fits with the article operation bagration before it hade way to low german casulties and much higher soviet ones. Also Industrial production is diffrent and all graphs are now black, grey and white so that color blind people can read them to. The Industrial production also now mentions that the soviets lost production capacity and the germans gained it by takeing over the lost land. Raw material production was lost by the Soviets and gained by the axis. The introduction is also very diffrent. And the Casulties section is also diffrent. And Mikkalail stop deleting stuff in the test page you keep on removeing a part that was agreed upon earlier and it is explained why it should be there. I am reopening the archives becuause it is clear that you need to read more about what has been said before. (Deng 11:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

• You are not reading what I wrote. Please finish the comparison table I started for you. And Deng, you don't own the page and I don't care that you agreed for obvious nonsense. I don't need archives, I know how to find them, thank you. I need a full systematic comparison of your changes. mikka (t) 21:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok you stoped on number 12

12 Operation Bagration facts in the article now fits with the Operation Bagration article before the numbers did not match what was said in the article

13-16 No change

17 It mentions slave labour it also has the numbers of other axis members production of raw materials and tank and Sp numbers to. Also many rewrites have been made to add more numbers. The locked version does have raw material production but the other propsed version which I think is no longer proposed does not have this. Also there is mention that the Soviets lost industry and raw material sources which the axis gained. And I also removed all the colors because some one said that color blind people might find it hard to read.

18 Major changes, almost all numbers have been changed most notebly the german ones the 2.5 million is not correct and that is explained in Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1

19+ No edits

These are the changes made by me which you have not mentioned before other people have made edits so what I say here might not be 100% exact but since most edits were made by me I can say that this is almost a complete comparison.

Also I know Idont own the page but the section you keep on deleting that has been placed thaere because people wanted to creat a warcrime article that would be linked from the eastern front page that is why the link was added even before the article has been made. (Deng 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

The redlink is misplaced, wrong and misspelled title. Nothing against the article. There is a big Category:World War II crimes to start from. But it will be more meaningful to have geographical articles, like World War II atrocities in Poland, because war crimes happened not only on the front line, but also in occupied territories far behind front. mikka (t) 01:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

== We need to get the numbers right ==

I have a dilemma with Soviet losses. The source on the casualties page now is Vadim Erlikman because he is the only one who makes a bit of sense, but still he is using Sov era data to allocate the losses. Soviet era sources are not known for reliability.
Here are the facts:
1- The Russian Academy of Science published a report in 1993 that gave data on the demographic impact of the war on the USSR. The losses were 26.6 million including 17 million draft aged males.
2-The official Russian military report published in 1993 listed 6.9 million confirmed dead plus 1.8 million POW and MIA deaths combined. They claim 4.5 million POW & MIA less 2.7 liberated in 1945.
3-The Germans claimed to have taken 5.7 million POW not counting Sov MIA.
4-Most western historians( I could make a list) give Sov POW losses as 3 million+. Not counting in MIA
5-An independent Russian researcher Vadim Erlikman published in 2004 a handbook of statistics on war casualties(with decent footnotes) that claimed the USSR military losses were 10.6 million in the war including 6.9 million Killed, 700,000 MIA, 2.6 million POW and 400,000 partisans and milita. The number of POW and MIA is more credible than 1.8 million so I posted Erlikman's data for the USSR. Erlikman is not an apologist for the communist system or the Russian government. He listed an estimated 1.7 million dead due to Soviet repression in addition to war losses of 26.5 million
6-Back to the 2.7 million POWs and "Vlasovites" that were sent back to the USSR in 1945. I wonder how many are included in the total of 17 million draft aged males lost in the war. They were marched off to the Gulag. We just do not know their fate.
7-Please go to my talk page --Woogie10w 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)to see a posting I copied from the Dupuy Forum on Soviet Casualties. Today there is a high level Russian military official( now he is head of the military archives) who claims there is a card file in Russia with the names of 13.8 million Soviet war dead.
I really need the help of people in Misplaced Pages who may have knowledge on this topic. We need to get the numbers right--Woogie10w 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly....

...Soviet crimes are not mentioned, but German are.

Yes they are read under "The Clash of Ideologies" , "Leadership", "Occupation and repression" and "Casualties"

Soviet Production figures in 1944

• Duffy, Christopher Red storm on the Reich: The Soviet March on Germany, 1945 Routledge 1991 ISBN 0415228298 page 23-24

"According to calculations of John Erickson, the Soviet Union in 1944 manufactured 29,000 tanks and assault guns, 40,300 aircraft, 122,500 artillery pieces and mortars, and 184 million shells, mines and aircraft delivered bombs (J. Erickson 1975-83, 'Stalin's war with Germany' Vol. II 405) The quality as well as the quantity must be taken into account, for the figures include 2,000 of the new IS-2 Stalin tanks, more than 11,000 T-34 upgunned to 85 mm (T34/85s), and over 3,000 new models of 100-mm, 122-mm and 152-mm assault guns mounted on tank chassis."

Andries 06:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You want to add the information or what, why did you make this post? The numbers you give are the same as in the test page except that the test page has exact numbers and you have round numbers. But if you want to add more information it is fine with me.

(Deng 13:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

overview of progress

what's the current situation on fixing the mess and reconstruction of the article?

It is in the works (Deng 23:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

i would also like to add that 2/3 of the eastern front ww2 discussion page are all concerned with the reconstruction. holy moley.

Some things I want to add

They come from here

The articel starts here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/soviet_german_war_01.shtml

But the things I want to add starts from here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/soviet_german_war_03.shtml

The reasons I want to add them are simple

1 It was writtem By Prof Richard Overy 2 If it is good enough for the BBC it is good enough for me

These are the things I want to add

The idea that the USSR had limitless manpower, despite its heavy losses, is inadequate as an answer. Germany and her allies also possessed a large population, and added to it the peoples of the captured Soviet areas - men and women who were forced to work for the German army or were shipped back to work in the Reich. Soviet armies were always desperately short of men.

Above all, Soviet tactics in 1941-2 were extremely wasteful of manpower. If the Red Army had continued to fight the same way, it would simply have sustained escalating losses for little gain.

Nor did the USSR enjoy an advantage in economic resources. After the German attack, Soviet steel production fell to eight million tons in 1942, while German production was 28 million tons. In the same year, Soviet coal output was 75 million tons, while German output was 317 million. The USSR nevertheless out-produced Germany in the quantity (though seldom in the quality) of most major weapons, from this much smaller industrial base.

The impressive production of weapons was achieved by turning the whole of the remaining Soviet area into what Stalin called 'a single armed camp', focusing all efforts on military production and extorting maximum labour from a workforce whose only guarantee of food was to turn up at the factory and work the arduous 12-hour shifts. Without Lend-Lease aid, however, from the United States and Britain, both of whom supplied a high proportion of food and raw materials for the Soviet war effort, the high output of weapons would still not have been possible.

The chief explanation lies not in resources, which Germany was more generously supplied with than the Soviet Union, during the two central years of the war before American and British economic power was fully exerted. It lies instead in the remarkable reform of the Red Army and the Russian air force, undertaken slowly in 1942.

Every area of Soviet military life was examined and changes introduced. The army established the equivalent of the heavily armoured German Panzer divisions, and tank units were better organised - thanks to the introduction of radios. Soviet army tactics and intelligence-gathering were also overhauled.

Camouflage, surprise and misinformation were brilliantly exploited to keep the German army in the dark about major Soviet intentions. The air force was subjected to effective central control and improved communications, so that it could support the Soviet army in the same way as the Luftwaffe backed up German forces.

The harsh treatment of the Soviet population in those areas of Russia occupied by Germany made it easier for the Stalinist regime to mobilise support elsewhere in Russia for the war effort. Stalin relaxed the repression of the Church so that it could be used to mobilise enthusiasm, while propaganda played on the theme of past Russian glories against European invaders, rather than on Communist successes.

An exceptional burden was borne by Soviet women. By 1945 over half the workforce was female, and on the land, more than four-fifths. Women fought in their thousands in the Soviet armed forces as pilots, sharpshooters, even tank commanders. Many women joined the partisan movement operating behind the German lines - and by 1943 there were an estimated 300,000 of them. They constantly harried German troops, and were themselves the victim of harsh punitive expeditions, which led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent villagers along with the partisan bands.

The war in the east was fought with a particular ferocity. The so-called 'barbarisation of warfare' has a number of explanations. Conditions were harsh for both sides, and losses were high. German forces entered the USSR with instructions from Hitler's headquarters to use the most brutal methods to keep control, and to murder Communist commissars and Jews in the service of the Soviet state.

By the autumn of 1941 these instructions had expanded to include all suspected partisans and other categories of Jew. In 1942 the remaining Jewish population was rounded up and killed on the spot or sent to extermination camps. The mass-murder of the Jews illustrates the importance of ideology in the conflict. Both sides fought in effect a civil war - the Soviets against imperialist invaders, the Germans against Jewish Bolshevism. The nature of the dictatorships determined the savage character of the eastern conflict.

Soviet victory came at a high price, but a combination of total-war mobilisation, better fighting methods and high operational skills defeated a German army that in 1944 was a formidable, heavily armed and modern fighting force. Soviet resistance made possible a successful Allied invasion of France, and ensured the final Allied victory over Germany. The Soviet state was transformed in the process into a superpower, and Communism, close to extinction in the autumn of 1941, came to dominate the whole Eurasian area, from East Germany to North Korea.

I know it is alot and Yes it will be re-written so that It dosent offend the copyright.

So what does everyone think, and please say what specific part you dont like and why, and remember the BBC arent some yahoos that put anything on their page.(Deng 14:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

Move along Deng

It is very frustrating to see that someone can hijack a page like this. Deng, you have driven so many people to the point of frustration, and for what? You are preventing a meaningful dialogue and limiting contributions from other authors. If you want to continue your rant, why not just get a blog? It would be a much better forum for you.--Auhlman 00:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Rant, Show me the rant also show me how I have hijakced this page, all I have done Is give facts real ones based on real soruces. So either stop your personal attacks or tell me where I have been wrong. Because of your offensive language and lack of specific issues and their sources I have strong feeling that this is a troll, but anyway...(Deng 11:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

Expert Opinion

This page contains numerous errors, employs false assumptions, and abounds with unfounded opinions. There is a distressing paucity of sources, and on the rare occassions that genuine citations appear, they are generally of poor quality. To make matters worse, the entire page is written at the academic level of the average 12-14 year old child. It is a travesty.

My recommendation is to delete the entire page, and start over again under the direction of a reasonably well-educated content expert.

Best Regards, Philippsbourg

I would consider vandalising another user's discussion page five times also a job of a 12 to 13 year old. Regards, --Constanz - Talk 05:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the test page? (Deng 11:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

1200 Hours, 1 April, 2006

Sadly, yes I have "looked at" the test page.

Best Regards, Philippsbourg

First of all this is the test page Proposed Version

Everything has a source or a refrense what specific part do you dissagree with

And Why did you post this at the start of talk page and not at the bottom like everyone does in wiki.

And if you are calling me 12-14 lets look at what you have done

1 you posted at the top of the page 2 you dont even know how to sign the page 3 I bet that you cant find any real sources that shows any of the numbers are wrong. You just want to complain.

(Deng 19:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

1220 Hours 1 April, 2006

Philippsbourg

Do you have some specific comments on specific parts or do you just want to complain?

(Deng 19:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

--24.64.223.203 22:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop this

This article is disappointing as are the comments on this page. Let's an expert we all can agree on rewrite the topic fully. Since there always will be disagreements and controversial statements on any topic remotely related to nazism and communism, we should consider putting the conflicting views on separate topics, ie., German view, Soviet view, etc. view. --209.23.214.244 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And where would we get this expert and what prevents someone from just changeing the whole thing? We need to work with what we got and try and do the best we can from what we got (Deng 04:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Well-made point. Reading the comments, it seems that there is a broad understanding of the general outline and what to do with that outline. Reverting makes sense. --209.23.214.244

I made a request to get the article unlocked

And it has gotten unlocked and I also have added the proposed version. Now if anyone wants to change anything lets first talk about everything here first and then change after we have talked. (Deng 11:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Deng, just so everyone is aware, here is what you posted in your unprotect request:

Unprotect the page and replace it with this test version Proposed Version that most have agreed upon

As long as people dont remove the fact that jews and others were used as slave labour by the nazies, that the SU lost alof of its industry and raw material sources which the axis gained or monkey with the numbers without stateing any refrences there should be no problem (Deng 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC))''

Reviewing the comments in this discussion page, it is evident that the proposed version is not one that "most have agreed upon". Did anyone count votes? DMorpheus 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is agreed upon by me, Ghirla, mikka, Constanz and Andreas and others (Deng 14:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Did I mis-understand the March 14th objections of both mikka and Ghirla to this version? Or were they objecting to some other version? DMorpheus 14:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You always misunderstand alot, the simplest way is to ask them on their talk page, do you X approve of this version of the eastern front, and by the way what is the alternative the version you supported which says 2.5 million germans died when in fact 4.3 million died and that is proven by the only sources ever given by ksenon (Deng 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

• hi firs timem posting here, just chimed in to say that ...2.5 mil lost germans?! I'm German and that seems way too low honestly. 4.5 at least seems realistic.--67.118.134.194 08:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes we know we even have a reference that gives 4.3 million german soldiers died by soviet hands. The refrences is Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1 and if you read the article and scroll down, it is almost at the bottom, you will see the numbers and the refrences. If you are german you will be able to read the books which gives the numbers. (Deng 10:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

Kursk edits

As predicted, the article is being edited at a high rate again. I removed the following content:

The Battle of Kursk represented a scaled-up version of the battles of World War I — infantry advancing under machine gun fire, and tanks advancing on batteries of anti-tank guns. Much of the German equipment was new and untested, with undertrained crews. The new tank hunter units, though sporting a highly effective 88 cannon, had no hull mounted machine gun to protect against infantry, and were quickly targeted by the Soviet anti tank guns, which were positioned in hemispherical concave bulges, forming semicircles of high velocity crossfire. Moreover, these positions were protected by small two-man foxholes armed with limpet tank mines, machine gun nests, and mortar fire, ensuring than the Wehrmacht infantry could not effectively defend the tanks.

There is no WW1 battle that resembles Kursk in any significant way. The paragraph is both inaccurate and, more to the point, unnecessary. There is a very good-quality separate article on Kursk. This is an overview article. No WW1 battle involved massed close-air support, mechanized infantry, remote-control mine-clearing vehicles, mobile mine-laying units, massed antitank guns, self-propelled artillery, on-call artillery fires, multiple rocket launchers, or mobile mechanized reserves. Most of the German equipment was not new; some of it was, but in an overview article such as this it is hardly worth mentioning, particularly since none of it was of much importance in the battle. Deng, please recognize that many contributors make for a good wikipedia article. I am asking you to stop reverting every edit you don't like, and give others a chance. DMorpheus 14:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I also reverted this edit out, essentially for the same reasons, and the lack of serious sourcing.Voice-of-All 17:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then just remove the part about ww1, I will remove thar part about ww1 if that is the only problem (Deng 03:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

OK, can you please explain why or indeed how Soviet soldiers used naval limpet mines? That's part of what I have been trying to remove, but you keep putting back. DMorpheus 15:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

I've been trying to stay out of this mess, but I was told of the unprotection. Now I'm following the edits and I'm more than appalled by the behavior here. I put a request for comment up in hope that neutral voices will join the debate and help out. PLEASE stop referring to legitimate edits as "vandalism". Vandalism does not apply here. The people removing or adding material are doing it out of good faith, not to vandalize the article. I put a request up that the article be reprotected since it's obvious that you all haven't learned a damn thing in the 2 1/2 months of protection. I've never seen an article protected for 2 1/2 months where neither side really made any overtures to compromise. It's disgraceful. And don't try to drag me back into this please. This is all I'm saying on this matter. --Woohookitty 17:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC input

I would have to say that this is an argument with no finite solution. There is no agreement on the figures; never has been, and likely never will be. The Sovs at various times under- and over-reported casualties to suit political needs, and also often just plain didn't really know (fog of war and all that - contrary to some opinion, the Soviet bureaucracy was not really all that efficient). Thus any source that cites a specific figure as gospel is simply not credible. My recommendation would be to present a range, and also to explain the range. To say "Soviet casualties where x" or even "Soviet casualties where about y" is not really credible; the best option is "Soviet casualties have variously been estimated between x and y million". Bridesmill 22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are ofcurse wrong the number of 10.6 million is very creditable and what you think or believe is irrelevant, that number has been sourced and has also been sourced and put into ww2 casulties list. This belief that the Soviets were all a bunch of inferior people is all nazi and cold war propaganda. And it cost the nazies their reich. The nazies knew that the Soviets were not capable of fighting and wageing war just as you know that the Soviets were unable to calculate their military losses. (Deng 03:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

To state that the number X is very credible and comes from a reliable souce is to redefine 'credible' and imply that a lot of otherwise reliable sources are no longer reliable. I have seen different otherwise credible sources quoting different numbers, sometimes the same sources quoting ranges as that's all that is available. I don't have any close to hand, unfortunately, but i'm sure i could find some if you really want me to. -- Lordandmaker 15:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

'Very credible' based on what? Have you compared this 10.6 mill to some amazing credible primary source material which nobody else has ever seen? This has nothing to do with what I think or believe, and everything to do with many years of studying the Soviet Onion, reading both German, Russian, and western primary & later sources. Nowhere did I state the Soviets where inferior - I stated the Soviet system was a mess, particularly in WW II. Nothing personal against them; they had their backs to the wall and *accurate* bodycounts simply where neither practicable nor politically what was required at the time. If they had the time and inclination, sure they could have done it. But they didn't. Now for us to come back after the fact and simply believe one figure over another when during the fact they weren't sure is total hubris, presumptuousness, and bordering on academic dishonesty. Bridesmill 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your whole approach to this controversy seems to be off-the-mark. I admit that I don't know much about this area but, on general principle, if there is more than plausible view of what the figures are, then document the controversy. Don't try to arrive at a single set of figures. Put forth all the figures that are available in the sources and document the nature of any credibility problems. It is not our job to come up with the "right" answer. It is our job to document what answers are available in credible sources and document what criticisms are made by credible sources. It is reasonable to dismiss some sources as being completely lacking in credibility or to document that some sources seem to be more credible than others. However, the ideal is to adopt a Neutral Point of View (NPOV).

To avoid violating , you need to source even your criticisms of the sources. You shouldn't say "X's numbers are not credible because he's a Soviet bureaucrat". You should say "Y believes X lacks credibility because he's a Soviet bureacrat." Of course, this is an ideal. If you can't find a credible source who criticizes X's numbers, then at least say "some scholars criticize X's numbers" and leave the source attribution for someone else to insert. But try to be sure that there really are scholars out there who criticize X's numbers. Make sure it's not your own personal opinion. That's OR.

Good luck.

Richard 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)