Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)

30 million died?

"The Eastern Front was by far the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II. It is generally accepted as being the deadliest conflict in human history, with over 30 million killed as a result"

I have never seen such high estimates before. Is there i source to suppoert the quote? --Lindberg47 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, civilian casualties are also included into this number. For sources, you can look at the World War II casualties. All numbers there have been meticulously verified. You can find the sources there.
As regards to military losses, Krivosheev's book (G. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7, online version is available in Russian only [1]) is quite a reliable source for the USSR, although it contains some numbers for the Axis countries: Hungary, Romania, Finland (not officially the Axis member), Italy and Slovakia sustained 1,468,145 irrecoverable losses (668,163 KIA/MIA), Germany - 7,181,100 (3,604,800 KIA/MIA) + 579,900 PoWs died in Soviet captivity. It worths mentioning, however that a considerable part German losses during 1945 is hard to attribute to Eastern or Wesrent front. Nevertheless, taking into account that more than a half of German troops fought in the East even by the very end of the war, the numbers look reasonable, and some Western sources (e.g. Glantz) give even larger losses. So we have about 4.8 million Axis losses in the East during the period of 1941-1945. This is more than a half of all Axis losses (including Asia/Pacific theatre).
As regards to the Allied losses, this question is more or less clear: the USSR sustained 10.5 million military losses (including PoWs died in German captivity), so only military losses (the Axis + the USSR) amount to 15 million, far greater than in all other theatres. The numbers of civilian losses (with references) can be found in the World War II casualties.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am really surprised you have never heard of these numbers. Do you live in the US or something? Anyways, this is why Stalin should be considered the worst of the worst, as he is responsible of over 60 mil deaths himself. Norum (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "as he is responsible of over 60 mil deaths himself". It is not clear for me how did you come to this conclusion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you an American or something? That's not only the war casualties, but throughout the 29 years that Stalin was in power. Just between 1936 and 1938 he is responsible for the death of 2 million Ukrainians. Norum (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ukrainians. You probably mean "in 1932-33"? One way or the another, this talk page is not a general forum.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the second wave of Stalin's repressions in Ukraine that occurred between 1936 and 1938. Then of course there was the first wave between 1929 and 1934. Plus of course there was the man-made famine in 1932 and 1933. Norum (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Croatia?

Some people reading the main box would think that Croatia was involved in the invasion of the Soviet Union, but as far as we know the Independent State of Croatia was a relatively fragile puppet state of main Axis Powers (Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) which occupied the former Yugoslav Kingdom region with their troops. So, the Independent State of Croatia had no proper army or defence forces itself, and so it did not participate of the Eastern Front during the attack on the Soviet Union.--BalkanWalker (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you change the current Croatia to exactly what was the puppet state called. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should be better to eliminiate the I.S. of Croatia icon-flag, since it did not participate in the military invasion of the Soviet Union.--BalkanWalker (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's necessary to provide a source which lists the forces which attacked the Soviet Union. --Erikupoeg (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the main historians agree that the I.S. of Croatia did not attack the Soviet Union directly. Until we have solid, written references about Croatian troops attacks on the Soviet Union, the flag of I.S. of Croatia must be excluded from the infobox.--BalkanWalker (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

At least one Croatian regiment (under Croatian flag) participated in the Battle of Stalingrad Of course, their role was not significant, but their contribution was at least comparable with that of Cuba or Brasil (the Allies).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So why don't you add it? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate Sovet victory?

What exactly does this mean? Was there a problem with "Decisive Soviet victory"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.186.81 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I also see no problem with "decisive". During the final stages of the war Soviet superiority was really decisive, as well as the victory. By contrast, "ultimate" is tautology, because any result is "ultimate". --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Axis-Soviet War

User:Shatteredwikiglass has been attempting to state that the term "Axis-Soviet War" is the most common and accurate term for the Eastern Front, but has not supplied any evidence. Does anyone have any evidence for this term allegedly being the 'most common'? Skinny87 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Am away from my limited sources on the Second World War's Eastern Front however a quick look through 2 pages of Google hits show the term only linking back to this article. I think you should also take a look at the template and dicussion page Template:Campaignbox Axis-Soviet War.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Er...how about you gentlemen think encyclopedically? This was a war between a coalition on the one side, and a state on the other. These are facts of history even if not reflected by Google hits. Wha evidence would an aspiring MA in History need? ;)--121.218.70.139 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the title Eastern Front is less encyclopaedic than Axis-Soviet war? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

More correct definition of EF

I restored a more correct definition made by Shattered Wikiglass (and extended it), because it is incorrect to reduce the Eastern front just to the Sovier-German war. I don't think citations are needed because, according to WP policy, only challenged materials or materials likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. The fact that Italy, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland fought against the USSR is well known and no citations are required.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of German Civilians During Russian Advance

Can a section on this be added? There is a section on German atrocities but not one covering the actions against the German civilians by Soviet troops once they arrived in Germany proper - or formerly occupied areas settled by Germans. This in no way is meant to suggest that the two were equivalent (morally or otherwise), and the article should explain the difference in motivations (i.e. war of extermination by germans vs. revenge by soviets). However, I believe such a section would help convey the ferocity of the fight on both sides as many of the Wehrmacht troops viewed the consequences of failure as annihilation and not merely failure of national Socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.77.6 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO there should be a single section (as there is now) but of course atrocities by both sides should be included. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The series of events preceding the opening of the Eastern Front ...

This para from the lede seems to belong to the background section. As a rule WP:LEDE "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Pre-1941 events are not covered by the article (just one paragraph in a Background section). Therefore the whole paragraph devoted to the events preceding the EF itself seems to be absolutely redundant in the lede.
In addition, the last paragraph ("This article, however, concentrates on the much larger conflict fought - after the start of Operation Barbarossa - from June 1941 to May 1945...") mostly repeats what is written in the very beginning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Siberian troops

The text:

"During the autumn, Stalin had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow (these troops had been stationed there in expectation of a Japanese attack, but Stalin's master spy Richard Sorge indicated that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead)."

seems to be not completely correct. According to Raymond L. Garthoff("The Soviet Manchurian Campaign, August 1945" Source: Military Affairs, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Oct., 1969), pp. 312-336), the size of Japanese elite Kwantung army was 1,1 million in 1942 and 787,600 in 1945. To contain this army, during the whole WWII the USSR kept about 750,000 infantry men, 1000 tanks and 1000 aircrafts north of Amur river. In other words, the amount of Soviet troops and armament was about equal to that of Kwantung army, and close to the amount of troops Hitler kept in western Europe foreseeing Allied invasion. Therefore, it is not correct to say that Stalin relied upon Sorge's data too much. I would propose to re-word the present text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your source. Regardless of how much of a force remained in the far east, some forces were transferred west in time to enter the battle of moscow. I have no idea if Sorge was the source or the reason; that's a separate question. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your point in unclear to me. The source states explicitly that three quarter million army was kept in far east to contain Kwantung army, and this amount was sufficient to stop Japanese troops even in the absence of reinforcement. The amount of troop was equal to the amount Hitler kept in Western Europe, and we know that he did expect Allied invasion there.
According to Louis Rotundo (The Creation of Soviet Reserves and the 1941 Campaign. Louis Rotundo Source: Military Affairs, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Jan., 1986), pp. 21-28), "over 30 divisions were moved from Far East in 1941, however the mobilization of new troops allowed the strength of Far East troops to double over the pre-war level." Therefore, the first statement (During the autumn, Stalin had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow) is correct, whereas the statement in parentheses (these troops had been stationed there in expectation of a Japanese attack, but Stalin's master spy Richard Sorge indicated that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead) is wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is you're going beyond what the source says. I agree the first bit of the sentence is correct. So, the remaining questions are: did Sorge tell his government that the Japanese would move south rather than attacking in China? Were there other intel sources? If yes, did Stalin believe him/them? If yes, did STAVKA weaken the far eastern army in order to help defend Moscow? The fact that a huge force was nevertheless maintained in the far east does not directly address these questions. An alternative wording, which bypasses the whole problem, might be something like this:

During the autumn, STAVKA had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow. These troops had been stationed there to defend against a possible Japanese attack, but intelligence estimates that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead allowed STAVKA to redeploy a portion of these forces.

How would that be? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem still remains. The text proposed by you creates an impression (although doesn't tell it explicitly) that the total number of troops in Far East decreased because Stavka was confident in Japanese peaceful intentions. However, as we see from the sources, the amount of troops in Far East was still quite sufficient to stop Kwantung army; moreover, this amount even increased in 1941. We need either to add more explanations, or to remove this peace of the text. Taking into account, that the text proposed by you essentially repeats the last sentence of the previous section I propose to remove is. Instead of that, I would add:"whereas a three quarter million army remained stationed there anticipating the attack of Japanese Kwantung Army." That would be more correct, because in actuality Sorge didn't report that Japan fully abandoned her aggressive plans. According to Victor Mayevsky, "This information made possible the transfer of Soviet divisions from the Far East, although the presence of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria necessitated the Soviet Union's keeping a large number of troops on the eastern borders..."
In actuality, according to him, the attack was possible at least twice: in 1941 (if Moscow was captured) and in 1942 (if battle of Stalingrad was won by Germany).
Minor point. Unlike "OKH" or "OKW", "Stavka" is not an acronym. It is short for "Stavka verkhovnogo glavnokomandovaniya", administrative staff and General Headquarters. Therefore, it is correct to write "Stavka", not "STAVKA".
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Casualties section biased?

First of all, one of the sources listed, a book "Ivan's War", I would say isn't exactly a reliable source, I remember reading some not so positive responses. Can't really find where I've read it, maybe someone here would want to try to help me out?
Another thing are some of the sentences in the section, they sound so one-sided: "...Stalin was willing to strike back against the invading Axis forces at all costs and led the war with extreme brutality..." - wasn't Hitler doing the same thing from 1943/1944 onward? The so called "total war"?
"Faced with badly equipped infantry units barely capable of standing up against machine guns, tanks and artillery..." - a generalisation as if this was a daily common through out the whole war. Needs to be specified where and when.
If you don't count dead POWs on both sides the ratio of killed military personel would be approximately 1,5 killed Soviet for every 1 Axis. If you compare it to Battle of France for example the ratio would be some 7 Allied individuals killed for every 1 Axis. In Battle of France it is attributed to the Blitzkrieg while in case of the Eastern Front it's because of those "Barbarian Russkies", am I right? At least that's how I feel about it reading the arguments in the current article section.
I say we need a rewrite. Or remove the 1st paragraph completely as it was before, leaving only the 2nd par ("The fighting involved millions of Axis and Soviet troops...") and onwards which sounds more neutral.
Anyone feeling the same way I do? IJK_Principle (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally agreed. The number of military losses (except dead POWs) really contradict to the picture drawn in the first para: 4,430,000 vs 6,650,000 do not support the para's statement. In addition, the paragraph should be carefully checked, because some statements seem to be unsupported by the sources. For instance, the sentence "The Red Army took much higher casualties than any other military force during World War II, in part because of high manpower attrition and inadequate time for training." pretends to be written based on the Glantz's report on Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk, July 1943. However, in actuality Glantz writes the following:

"However, it was in the tactical arena that Soviet forces had to make the greatest progress if they were to reverse the trends of the past and avoid tactical disasters that, in turn, could produce operational defeat. That progress was apparent at Kursk. It was clear that the tactical proficiency of the Soviet soldier and lower-ranking officer often lagged behind that of his German counterpart--in part because of high manpower attrition and inadequate time for training. However, those who had survived learned, and a generation of more tactically competent company, battalion, and regimental commanders emerged at Kursk. In part, that competence resulted from the systematic collection, analysis, and dissemination of war experiences conducted under the auspices of the General Staff."

Taking into account that the major Glantz's conclusion was :"Kursk stands like an object lesson to those who would stand in awe and fear of current offensive threats. Kursk announced to the world that for every offensive theory, there is a suitable defensive one available to those who devote the requisite thought necessary to develop it", I strongly doubt the sentence really reflects the main idea of the cited source.
A direct comparison of the sentence: "Stalin's order No 270 of 16 August 1941, states that in case of retreat or surrender, all officers involved were to be shot on the spot and all enlisted men threatened with total annihilation as well as possible reprisals against their families." with the Order No. 270's text demonstrates that the sentence does not reflect the order's text correctly.
My conclusion is that the paragraph should be either deleted or carefully examined, because I have a strong reason to suspect that the sources does not directly support the information as it is presented in the para.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence:

"In accordance with the orders of Soviet High Command, retreating soldiers or even soldiers who hesitated to advance faced being shot by rearguard SMERSH units:Stalin's order No 270 of 16 August 1941, states that"

is wrong. It obviously is a confusion between Order No. 270 and Order No. 227: barrier troops were formed pursuant to the latter. In addition, the source (Ivan's war) says that the requirement for armies to maintain companies of barrier troops was withdrawn after just three months, on October 29 1942. Intended to galvanise the morale of the hard-pressed Soviet Army and emphasise patriotism, it had a generally detrimental effect and was not consistently implemented by commanders who viewed diverting troops to create barrier units as a waste of manpower, so by October 1942 the idea of regular blocking units was quietly dropped (page 158). In connection to that, I believe we can remove this fragment as marginally relevant and unimportant.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the exact same paragraph is also present in the World War II casualties of the Soviet Union article, Causes section. IJK_Principle (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the unsourced sentence: "Faced with badly equipped infantry units barely capable of standing up against machine guns, tanks and artillery, the tactics of Soviet commanders were often based on mass infantry attacks, inflicting heavy losses on their own troops." is simply ridiculous, taking into account that during the war the USSR produced much more tanks than the Axis did (a great part of them was famous T-34, the best WWII tank, according to some sources), had perfect artillery, and Soviet infantry was equipped mostly with sub-machine guns, in contrast to German infantry, equipped with rifles. I believe, I can remove this statement, because the facts that took place in certain (short) phases of the war cannot be projected on the war as whole.
I am also curious why nothing was said about heavy Axis losses. In actuality, the Axis (the Axis as whole, including Japan) lost in Eastern front more troops than in all other theaters of war taken together...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another ridiculous statement is: "The genocidal death toll was attributed to several factors, including brutal mistreatment of POWs and captured partisans by both sides..." This sentence is intended to create an impression that both anti-Axis and anti-Allied partisan movements were of about equal scale. Definitely, it was not the case. In addition, high mortality among Axis POWs doesn't fit a genocide definition, because it is generally explained just by dramatic food and medical help shortage in the USSR as whole. GULAG prisoners and even civilians suffered from that in about the same extent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"multiple atrocities by the Germans and the Soviets against the civilian population and each other, the wholesale use of weaponry on the battlefield against huge masses of infantry." Again, taking into account that Soviet and Axis population losses are hard to compare, and because a considerable part of Axis civilian losses was inflicted by Western allies (including the Allied bombing campaign) it seems not correct to equate the scales of German and Soviet atrocities. Although formally the section pretends to be neutral, such an action has an opposite effect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Commander list

Since Andrey Vlassov has been recently included into the Commander list, I am wondering about the rules for incorporation of one or another person into this list. It is natural to expect that only highest rank commanders (Army generals or marshals) should be included there. Alternatively, only the commanders of fronts, Stavka and General Headquarters' should be included. By contrast, the person having a comparatively low rank, or the commanders of relatively small miloitary units (divisions or armies) should not be in the list. In connection to that, I propose to exclude the persons like Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Vlassov from the list.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That edit prompted precisely the same concern from me. I agree Stavka and Front commanders should be listed. But going below that simply turns this list into 'my favorite commanders'. I would exclude divisional commanders too, much as we may admire Rodimstev for example. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Commanders list in current form is just retardedly long. We have even some Croatian regimental commanders there. Soviet-German commanders should be limited to front and army group commanders and higher. From other states I would include Mannerheim and maybe also Antonescu and Bór-Komorowski.--Staberinde (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Croatian participation in the war was limited with one regiment, I don't think Croatian commander should be in the list. With regards to the Poles and Czechs, at least one commander should be there. In addition, leaving only Bór-Komorowski's name may create an absolutely wrong impression that he was a commander of the Polish Eastern front's troops, that was, obviously, not the case.
However, I support the proposal in general.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggested Bór-Komorowski only because Warsaw uprising wasnt under direct Soviet command like all other polish-czech commanders on allied side. But frankly if it creates some dispute here I would suggest removing him too. Considering scale of conflict and current situation in infobox we should generally cut more if that is needed for making everyone happy, instead of cutting less to make everyone "represented". Otherwise we will be soon also adding Romanian and Bulgarian commanders to allies side to represent period when they changed sides, not to mention whoever lead Slovak national uprising.--Staberinde (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I started thinking that maybe even Front/Army Group is too small unit for such massive conflict as fighting on Eastern Front was. Template:Infobox_military_conflict suggests For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Barbarossa already has 10 Soviet commanders(sticking only to front commanders and higher) and it covers only like 1/8-1/7th of whole campaign. Maybe limit Eastern Front infobox to Hitler, Stalin, Mannerheim and maybe also German/Soviet Chiefs of the General Staff? That would probably allow to shorten commanders list to 10 names or less which would be more readable.--Staberinde (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Now I started thinking that maybe even Front/Army Group is too small unit for such massive conflict" You correctly pointed out that that conflict was very massive (in actuality, about a half of whole WWII, in terms of troops involved, casualties and strategic implications). Therefore, it is quite natural to have many commanders in the list. If we limit the infobox with Hitler, Stalin, Mannerheim and Antonescu, we thereby omit Konev, Rokossovsky, Chernyahovsky and other commanreds who were more prominent than Mannerheim and Antonescu, and whose role in WWII was more important than the role of these two. Therefore I believe the front commanders should be in the list.

I briefly looked through the Soviet commander's list and I found some of them do not satisfy this criterion and should be removed, that will shorten the list by ~20%. I'll write a concrete proposal a little bit later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I did not even suggest Antonescu anymore. I figured that only Finnish Army was big enough and operated independently from German command for long enough to have separate commander. Anyway its not natural to have many commanders in list because point of infobox is only to show few most importnant, if conflict gets bigger then requirements for including commander need to be raised too so that commanders list remains roughly in same lenght. If you want to have long list then it should be located somewhere else. Front/Army Group is fitting for something in scale of Barbarossa but not for Eastern Front. Currently we actually seem to miss quite a few commanders on Soviet side that fit criteria "Front or higher", like Sokolovsky, Kurochkin, Chernyakhovsky, Budyonny, Pavlov, Tyulenev. Most likely I actually missed several because Soviet commanders aren't my strong point. Anyway my last suggestion was something like Allies: Stalin+Zhukov+Shaposhnikov+Vasilevsky, Axis: Hitler+Brauchitsch+Halder+Zeitzler+Guderian+Mannerheim. Another solution would be creating fully separate article titled "Commanders of Eastern Front" or something similar, and have infobox simply linking to it like is done in WW II main article. Btw, I dont really comprehend what criteria you used for comparing "importance" of commanders in your last comment, Mannerheim simply has one critical quality which I think that nobody on Eastern Front except Hitler or Stalin had(not counting smaller events like Warssaw uprising), nobody stood above him in line of command.--Staberinde (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support the limited version of the list of commanders as proposed by Staberinde. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Antonescu. Disagree. The difference between Romania and Finland was that the former was a Germany's ally, whereas the latter was just a co-belligerent. However, Romania fielded more troops than Finland did, and participated in more important battles (Odessa, Stalingrad, Sevastopol) than the Finns did. Antonescu must be mentioned explicitly. Moreover, in my opinion, at least one commander of every Axis' allied armed forces should be in the list, because there was a considersble degree of independence of junior Axis' members from Germany.

Re: "Hitler+Brauchitsch+Halder+Zeitzler+Guderian+". I cannot understand your criteria. Why did you include Guderian and forgot von Bock, whose subordinee Guderian was? Why did you include Zeitzler, and forgot about Keitel an OKW's chief who signed an instrument of surrender that ended the Eastern Front conflict? Again, we either include only Hitler, Antonescu, Mannerheim, Horthy and Mussolini (from the Axis side) and Stalin (from Soviet side), that would be ridiculous, or include a long list of top ranked officers that played important roles in various important events and occupied important positions during different periods of the war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I did not include Guderian for his role in Barbarossa but for his role as Chief of General Staff. OKH article claims that OKH was mostly running eastern front while OKW ran other fronts, although if you think that signing instrument of surrender is so damn critical we could replace OKH men with Keitel and Jodl. It doesn't really matter what criteria exactly we pick, we just need something that cuts lenght of list down critically. Only other realistic alternative is using same approach as World War II infobox. Current situation, where by the time I see end of commanders list, the beginning of list has already dissappeared from my screen, is nonsense. Its not the purpose of infobox to attempt covering every last prominent commander.--Staberinde (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Formally, OKH was subordinated to OKW, although de facto they divided spheres of responsibility between each other. With regards to Guderian, you have to agree that his role in Barbarossa was much more notable than his activity as a chief of OKH staff. This perfectly demonstrates my point that it is quite impossible to name few key persons who played a leading role during the war in the east.

Re: "Only other realistic alternative" I believe this alternative is more realistic. Taking into account that the Eastern Front's scale is comparable with the scale of WWII as whole, the same approaches towards thier descriptions can and should be used. However, we have to write corresponding articles first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that one article with separate sections for axis and soviet commanders would be actually enough. Article could be simple list of commanders names in beginning (WW II leaders lists started exactly like that [2]), which may be latter expanded to include more detailed information about those commanders.--Staberinde (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede

According to guidelines, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." From that point of view, the penultimate para looks somewhat odd. It tells about the events preceding EF, thereby reproducing a one paragraph long Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact section.

"The series of events preceding the opening of the Eastern Front included the invasion of Poland in 1939 by Nazi Germany and the resulting fourth partition of Poland when the Soviet Union used the invasion as a pretext to annex the eastern regions of the country, populated by a majority of ethnic Ukrainians and Belarussians and by Polish minorities, as outlined in the secret codicil to the August 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression pact, which also paved the way for the 1940 Soviet occupation of Baltic states and the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia."

Most interestingly, from the last paragraph we learn that the events described in the above para are not included into the article. ("This article, however, concentrates on the much larger conflict fought"). It is unclear for me why about 20% of the lede's space is devoted to the events not covered by the article.
I propose to remove the penultimate lead's para and to rewrite the last paragraph accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Result

The proposed EF result:

Decisive Soviet victory.

• Fall Of The Nazi Germany.
• Allied Victory In European Theatre Of WWII.
• Soviet Occupation Of Germany.
• Division Of Germany Into East Germany And West Germany.
• Beginning Of The Cold War.

seem to be too broad. The USSR occupied only a part of Germany, division of Germany took place later, Cold War started not immediately after WWII, and, probably, was not inevitable. From other hand, "Allied Victory In European Theatre Of WWII" is too narrow, because the victory in EF had a deep impact on the war in Pacific, and, therefore caused the victory in WWII as whole. I fixed that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Beligerents

Belarusian Central Rada was nominally the government of Belarus from 1943–44. Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia was a NGO. Both of them weren't states, therefore, I see no reason to include them into the Belligerent section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I partly agree. However, if this is the standard, why are the Polish Underground "State" and the Polish Committee of National Liberation listed as belligerents? Both of these could hardly be considered states, the former being a resistance movement, and the latter a "committee for liberation" (like the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia). This is a double standard at its worst. Lt.Specht (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is simple. Poland never surrendered, so it continued to be a belligerent from 1 Sept 1939 to May 8 1945. Therefore both the Polish Underground "State" and the Polish Committee of National Liberation may be considered successors of the pre-war Polish state. In addition, they performed really independent military activity and fielded a considerable amount of troops. Nothing of that was done by Rada or a committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia. Similarity in names is misleading in that case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the Polish Committee (which was only recognized by the Soviets), taken from its wiki page, "It exercised control over Polish territory re-taken from Nazi Germany and was fully sponsored and controlled by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", "the Soviet Union started to transfer power in the Soviet-controlled areas of Lublin, Białystok, Rzeszów and Warsaw Voivodships to the PKWN. Actual control over those areas remained in the hands of the NKVD and the Red Army", "Similar events took place in many of the other East European states under control of the Red Army, as, for example, in Romania in March, 1945, where a Communist government was elected through a combination of vote manipulation, elimination and forced mergers of competing parties." Seems like a "State" on par with Rada and Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia (which did too field a large amount of troops and performed nominally independent, Russian Liberation Army, Rada also provied a significant amount of manpower and formed Commando units). The Polish Underground State could be arguably a belligerent, but the Polish Committee of National Liberation is no more qualified than Rada or the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia. Sources are needed for both the Underground State and the Polish Committee of National Liberation which claim they are belligerents, in my opinion, if both Rada and the Committee of Russian Liberation are going to be double standard-excluded from the infobox. Lt.Specht (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the Polish Committee was recognized only by the Soviets (that, by contrast, didn't recognized the London Poles), however, it eventually laid a ground for formation of the new Polish state, People's Republic of Poland. The latter was subsequently recognized by other states (including Western democraties), that post factum legitimated the Commitee. With regards to Soviet control of Wojsko Polskie, I don't think a degree of such a control was higher than that of Anglo-American control of Free French forces.
By contrast, Rada was not recognized even by Germans themselves, they fielded no military troops in their own uniform, the Russian Liberation Army didn't exist until 1944 and it participated in almost no hostilities against the Red Army. In addition, the linkage between the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia and the Russian Liberation Army in unclear for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Belorussian Central Rada is about as much separate combatant as Reichskommissariat Ostland and Reichskommissariat Ukraine or even less. Although on other hand I am not really sure if comparison of Polish Committee and Free French is appropriate either. Anyway there seems to be annoying tendency to put as much separate combatants/commanders in infoboxes as possible, making infoboxes annoyingly long, and this article is pretty extreme case of that.--Staberinde (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't compare political autonomy of Polish Committee and Free French. My major point was that (at least, initially) French forces were subordinated to the Anglo-American high command, similarly to the Polish troops in East, that were subordinated to the Soviets. This fact, taken separately, means nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Blue Division not a belligerent

If I am not wrong, sending military units against some country means declaration of a war. Spain was neutral during WWII. Listing the Blue division as a separate belligerent means either that Spain was a belligerent or that the Blue division acted independently on both German and Spanish High Command. It is nonsense.

With regards to Rada, it was just a nominally puppet state (in other words, it was not even a puppet state, see a Staberinde's comment). Slovakian solders, for instance, wore their own uniform. What uniform had Rada's solders?
PS I will not revert your edits for a while but I'll do that in close future unless you provided more solud ground, namely, reliable sources that explicitly mention the Blue division ar Rada as separate belligerents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "It is not in a respectful manner to undo without giving reasons." I provided reasons for undoing. In addition, other editors seem to support this undoing. I would say, it is not a respectful manner to re-insert already reverted edits before a consensus is achieved. Moreover, it is against the Bold-revert-discuss rule.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "non-state actors can form belligerents as well". Al-Quaida is considered a belligerent because it acted independently and directly deployed troops against the USA. Did the Committee act independently and how many troops were subordinated to it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Having the Blue Division as a belligerent seems to be pushing it to far, as they did wear Wehrmacht uniforms and everything. Franco also declared that Spain was non-belligerent in the war. On the other hand, the article does currently have the 1st Czechoslovakian Independent Brigade listed as the Czechoslovak Republic, a country and government which was legally dissolved by its own government and leaders, its legal successor being the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, with its same President and everything. Regardless, I will add the proper citations and sources for Rada and the Blue Division soon. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Re: 1st. Well, I was not accurate enough. I meant that Sending military units against some country means becoming a belligerent. Although the USA declared no war on Iraq, by sending military units they became a belligerent, didn't they?

Re: 2nd. ("seeing that you were wrong to say that no Belarusian military existed") The question was if Belarussian military (besides partisans) fought as German allies, or they were just hiwi military/paramilitary that were directly subordinated to local German authorities. AFAIK they were under direct control of Curt von Gottberg, so they can hardly be considered a separate belligerent. With regards to the uniform, the picture presented by you is a primary source, so we can use it as a support for your claim only if it does it directly. The interpretation of this picture is ambiguous: a Belarussian caption tells us that "Belarussian youth is marshing to the railway station", whereas the German wersion specifies that they go under national Belarussian flag to Germany for training. It is not clear from the captions that they represent armed forces of at least nominally recognized state.

Re: 3rd. Again, it is not clear how a division can be a separate belligerent. The sources available for me tell that the Blue division was sent by Franco, however, Franco abstained from participation in the war. That was possible only if the Blue division was directly subordinated to the German command (to Manstein, afaik). Consequently, I see no difference between the Blue division and Charlemagne, for instance. Both Spaniards and French joined Wehrmacht, so the only difference between these two divisions was in the mechanism of their formation, not in their position in German Army. (One more restriction was that Franco requested Blue division to be utilized against the USSR only).

Re: 4th. I agree that WP is not a democracy, and only facts and sources matter. However, since it was you who introduced this new text, the burden of evidence lies on you. Therefore, it would be more correct to say that "you confirm your statements or I will have to remove it in accordance with facts and WP policy". I see no sufficient ground so far to claim that you have sustained your burden of evidence.

Re: 5th. Al-Qaeda, Yugoslavs, minor Axis members etc fought independently, although sometimes in collaboration with their allies. I see no analogy with Rada.

Re: 6th. "When I said "without giving reasons"" etc. You haven't refuted my arguments so far.

Re: 7th. I believe I addressed all your arguments 1 to 6. With regards to your other statements, let me tell you that I have much more reasons to accuse you in violation of WP policy than you do. However, I will not do that because I hate to play these games, and, in addition, I feel you are new in Wikipedia and, probably, as soon as you will get more familiar with the rules and policy (and after you encounter some really problem editor) all your behavioural and communication problems will go.

I wait for additional sources and arguments from you. Otherwise I'll delete Rada and Blue division in a couple of days (note, according to WP guidelines I can do that right now, however I prefer not to do that as a sign of a good will)
Cheers,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "a country and government which was legally dissolved by its own government and leaders" This legal dissolution was much less legal than anexation of the Baltic states by the USSR. Only future Axis countries recognized it was legal.

Re: "Regardless, I will add the proper citations and sources for Rada and the Blue Division soon." Which statements are these sources intended to support?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand your question. Intended to support that they were belligerents, at least in the same capacity that that other Allied belligerents that are currently listed were. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would be interesting to see your sources. I found no sources supporting these claims so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Responds on ##1 to 6

1. Re: "that Spain was a de jure neutral state and a de facto co-belligerent" I know a number of sources confirming the your first part of your statement, however, the same sources do not support, or even directly contradict to the second part of this statement, namely, that Spain was both de jure and de facto neutral. However, it is not so important. The most important thing is that the Blue division was a regular Wehrmacht division, and the quotes below fully, unequivocally and persuasively comfirms this my point:

"By the end of July, the 18,000 Spaniards had arrived at the German Army training center at Grafenwohr, where they were created into the 250th Infantry Division of the Wehrmacht. The Division itself was composed of three regiments, the 262d (under a Colonel Pimentel), the 263d (under Colonel Esparza), and the 269th (under Colonel Vierna), plus the 250th Mobile Reserve Battalion, the 250th Artillery Regiment, two divisional antitank companies, a sapper unit, and administrative, sanitation, medical, and veterinary units. In addition, a contingent from the Guardia Civil was incorporated into the Military Police to serve behind the Spanish sectors of the German lines. Some months later in Russia, a company of Spanish com- bat ski troops were organized under a Captain Ordas. Finally, several units of Spanish fighter pilots were organized into combat con- tingents attached to the Luftwaffe.
Dressed in regulation German Army uniforms and trained throughout August and half of September by German instructors, the Spanish volunteers were nonetheless encouraged to wear their native shoulder patch (Espana), were led by their Spanish officers, and were "allowed" to bear the obsolete Spanish weapons brought with them from Madrid. Following their absorption into the Wehrmacht, the volunteers were required to take the standard personal oath to Hitler, under whose authority they were to be fighting." (Spanish Volunteers against Bolshevism: The Blue Division Author(s): Arnold Krammer Source: Russian Review, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 388-402)

"On 31 July, as the 250? Division was formally incorporated into the Wehrmacht, the Spanish volunteers each took a personal oath to Hitler."(Franco and the Axis Stigma. Author(s): David Wingeate Pike Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 1982), pp. 369-407)

I believe it is quite sufficient to delete the Spanish Blue Division from the belligerents' list, what I will do right now.

2. Re: "it was subrdinated to the German occupation authority". You fully confirmed my point. If they were subordinated to German occupation authority, they cannot be a separate belligerent. Were Hungarian, Romanian (leaving aside the Finns) militaries directly subordinated to German military authorities? The answer is no. Moreover, they were not puppet states, they were just junior members of the coalition. The quote below confirm that:

"As part of the preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa), the Germans established a military mission in Romania.3 Composed at first mainly of Army personnel, its nature changed once Barbarossa began. By November 1941, the Germans had about 63,000 men in Romania, of whom some 45,000 were in the DLM."

""On the whole, however, the record of Axis coalition warfare on the eastern front is a poor one, with failures at every level. Major reasons for these failures included language barriers, a radical difference in the degree of modernity in the level of technology and training of the Axis armies, Germany's failure to become "the arsenal of fascism," and a lack of understanding on the part of all the Axis powers, with perhaps the exception of Finland, of the relationship between national objectives, strategy, and the morale of soldiers and officers alike." )(The Dysfunctional Coalition: The Axis Powers and the Eastern Front in World War II Author(s): R. L. DiNardo Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 711-730)

Note, the source discuss Romanian, Hungarian etc. own objectives.

The only questionable belligerents are Slovakia and Croatia. However, they have some important traits of real states, similar to that of Vichy France: their own government, their own army, their own political parties and legislation. Did Rada have at least something like that? No. It was an occupied territory, and the only thing its "army" could do was to help Germans to fight against Partisans. The latters were much stronger and much more numerous, and in the absence of Wehrmacht they would steamroll this "government" in days. Again, the occupation authorities granted minimal autonomy to a handful of collaborationists, and it is deeply incorrect to compare this pseudopuppet state with Slovakia and Croatia.

3. This question needs no answer because, as I already proved, neither Spain nor the Blue division were a separate belligerents.

4. Taking into account that my sources directly state that neither Spain nor the Blue division were a separate belligerents it is clear that you didn't sustain your burden of evidence.

5. I explained the difference between Croatia and Rada, I believe it is sufficient. However, it might be useful for you to read, for instance that article (Rivalry between Germany and Italy in Croatia, 1942-1943 Author(s): Srdjan Trifkovic Source: The Historical Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 879-904) that states that Croatia was both in German and Italian spheres of influence, and was more a satellite rather than a puppet state. Nothing in common with Rada.

6.

7. Again, feel free to do whatever you want. You seem not fully understand how does Wikipedia works.
Finally, I delete the Blue division and I give you some more time to find additional sources on Rada.
Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The recent revert is not justified. The source (Shirer) does not support the text. The text: "and other leaders of the German High Command, considered the Spanish Blue Division to be an "Allied Division", in the same context of Romanian, Hungarian, etc. divisions. William L. Shirer. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is a pure example of WP:OR because it is the editor's conclusion made based on the Shirer's book. Please, do not restore the Blue division, because you have no ground for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you decreased a level of your rhetoric.

Re: "but rather my interpretation of it" Correct. The quote you talk about is "So successful were he and Keitel with all the satellites that the German High Command calculated it would have 52 'Allied' divisions available for the summer's task-27 Romanian, 13 Hungarian, 9 Italian, 2 Slovak and one Spanish", and I have nothing against that. However, the conclusion (made by Lt.Specht, if I am not wrong) that "leaders of the German High Command, considered the Spanish Blue Division to be an "Allied Division", in the same context of Romanian, Hungarian, etc. divisions" is an interpretation of the Shirer's own words, and it was attributed to the German High Command mistakenly. In addition, Shirer doesn't say directly that the Blue division was a separate belligerent. By contrast, my sources directly state that this division was a formal part of Wehrmacht. Anyway per WP:BURDEN, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and the source provided by you does not fully support your edit, whereas my two sources (and I can provide more) tell directly opposite. Romanian of Hungarian divisions were not an official part of Wehrmacht, they had separate uniform, separate command and didn't have to take the standard personal oath to Hitler. And that is quite sufficient to consider them belligerents, by contrast to Spaniards.
I propose to close the discussion. You already violated WP:3RR rule, you committed personal attacks and your behaviour may be interpreted as uncivil. I already have enough material to report to ANI, but I have no intentions to do that because your behaviour seems to be a result of unawareness of some basic WP rules. I see you are quite prone to productive and constructive discussion, so I propose you to forget this incident. I believe you don't mind me to remove the Blue division from the article, and let's switch to something else. OK?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be an absolutely honest opponent who wants to establish truth, not to win a dispute at all cost. I respect you and your principles. In connection to that, I would like you to know that I also is interested in finding truth, not to win. As a rule, when I do a search I try to find sources supporting all points of view. If I find any sources that support your statement I'll inform you about that.
However, I sincerely cannot understand why you don't understand my point. The Shirer's fragment you quoted allows ambiguous interpretation: these words might reflect not a status of the Blue division, but its origin. Yes, this division was composed of the Spaniards, and Franco had probably some authority over them, because in 1943 he revoked the Blue division from the Eastern front, however, this doesn't mean he maintained a generel control over the diivision. If I am not wrong, the withdrawal was done at Hitler-Franco's level, not by giving an order directly to the Division's commander. By contrast to the Norwegian Quisling government, that was established as a result of German conquest, Spain was not under German control, and Hitler let the Spaniards go simply because he wanted to maintain good relations with Franco. Anyway, I see no other examples of Franco's control over the Blue division.
By contrast, according to my sources, starting from 1941 till 1943 this division was a regular Wehrmacht division, and its personnel wore German uniform, and took "the standard personal oath to Hitler, under whose authority they were to be fighting". The latter fact seems to be especially important, because after taking the personal oath to Hitler they became a regular Wehrmacht solders. Note, it is not my conclusion, this was what my sources state directly and explicitly. Frankly, I believe, in that situation (one ambiguous source on one side, and two clear and unequivocal sources on the another) the Blue division should be removed without doubts. I removed the Blue division for a while because present evidentiary base suggests that is was not a separate belligerent. However, I am ready to discuss your new arguments and, if they will be strong enough, I will support incorporation of the Blue division into the Belligerent section.
(However, the best way to do that would be to discuss the question on the talk page, and only after a consensus is achieved to introduce the Blue division into the article. That would be what WP:BRD recommends.)
I admit I probably made some "rhetoric statements" in the beginning of our discussion because I didn't consider you a serious opponent. However, starting from the middle of the discussion there were no rhetorics in my posts, I believe. Concretely, the last post contains only facts and sources, and I expect you to explain me why do you still disagree with me. Please, tell me what concretely is wrong in my rationale, because "I still strongly disagree with you in this dispute" needs in some detalisation.

PS. Re: "I came here to share things I believe right, rather than to make a "friend" at the expense of my belief". WP is not a facebook, and, therefore, is not the best place for looking for friends. It would be better if we remain opponents who respects each other's point of view, and who accepts the other's point of view when he has no more arguments.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

PPS. I probably agree that we have to look at Croatia again. Maybe, the ground is insufficient to consider it a belligerent. I'll try to find more sources on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

One more source on the Blue Division: North to Russia: The Spanish Blue Division in World War II Author(s): Gerald R. Kleinfeld and Lewis A. Tambs Source: Military Affairs, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Feb., 1973), pp. 8-13. The source states that, as I already proposed, the withdrawal of the Blue division was done via careful negotiations between Franco and Hitler, and the order to withdraw was passed to Gen. Infantes by the Supreme Commander of the Army Group North. That confirms that Franco had no direct control of the Blue division.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Belarussian Central Rada

The source supporting incorporation of Rada as a separate belligerent states:

"The Belarusian National Council organized and fielded the Belarusian Home Defense Corps (BKA) c. 60,000 men, it engaged in anti-Soviet Partisan activities and the establishment and expanding ring of fortified villages around Smalensk, which was done in other areas. The Belarusian Government-in-Exile also helped formed the 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Belarussian), Astroŭski persuaded Heinrich Himmler to place the Belarusian forces under Belarusian command. Astroǔski had set up an officers' school and issued uniforms with the "Waffen Sturm-brigade Belarus" designation. Orders were issued for Belarusian forces to be absorbed by Andrey Vlasov's Russian Liberation Army, but these order were not carried out. The famous Czorny Kot (Black Cat) Commando unit engaged in anti-Soviet guerrilla operations in Soviet occupied Belarus, it was formed in part by Astroǔski, and was airdropped behind enemy lines after a graduation parade in front of him."

It is not clear from the source, however, what was the status of the Belarusian National Council. According to my knowledge, Belorussian SSR was the occupied territory and the "National Council" was established there by German occupation authorities and was just a collaborationist government under strict German control. In that sense, it had even less autonomy than Quisling's Norway did. No one, however, lists Quisling's Norway as a separate belligerent.

In connection to that, I expect someone to present an evidence that the Belarusian National Council was more than a nominal state or a collaborationist government (e.g. that it was a puppet state of Slovakian or Croatian type). Frankly, I don't believe it is possible because I failed to find anything. If no sources will be presented in a couple of days, I'll delete Rada from the list.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree overall with much you are saying. The premise of the argument, however, is if Rada meets the same standards of other Allied "belligerents" which are currently in the article. The Polish Committee of National Liberation was established by Soviet authorities, which was also under strict Soviet control, and was little more than a propaganda tool by the Soviets. Is this not very comparable to Rada? The fact that the Committee would later evolve into the Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland, and much later that would transform into the People's Republic of Poland is not really that relevant, as this article deals with the Eastern Front and its time period. Both of those two were mere Soviet puppets in the same sense. The same basis of this argument can be applied to both the Polish Underground State, and the Czechoslovak Republic (which did not even exist during the war). I feel that the solution to this dispute is to revert back to how the old battlebox was, before the "belligerents" which I have mentioned were not in the battlebox, but were listed in the bottom Soviet Union notes; somehow they were "promoted" to the battlebox within the last year or so. Germany's notes list the Russian Liberation Army and Blue Division which seems appropriate, Rada could be listed there as well. Proposed changes to the right. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Front (World War II)
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Soviet Union Romania (from 1944) Bulgaria (from 1944) Finland (from 1944)	Germany Romania (to 1944) Finland (to 1944) Italy (to 1943) Italian Social Republic (from 1943) Hungary Independent State of Croatia Slovakia Bulgaria (September 5-8, 1944)

In general, your point is clear and non-controversial. However, we have to check if we took everything into account. I'll try to look in history to find who added those belligerents and which arguments and sources were used as a support for that. If the arguments are not strong enough (and if I don't find any additional sources) I will support removal of these belligerents.
Anyway, Rada should be removed anyway, what I do right now.
In addition, Tuva and Mongolia should be added as Allied belligerents (I have several sources sating that those two countries were independent states, although strongly dominated by the USSR. In other words, the relations were similar to those between Germany and, e.g. Slovakia.
We also have to check if Croatia officially declared a war on the USSR. I have a feeling that it didn't (although I am not sure)--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

German casualties according to Overmans

We have to read and cite Overmans correctly if we use his statistical analysis (which is being disputed). I have corrected the table: Overmans p. 265: "nearly 4 million dead including died POWs". -- p. 272 (and p. 336): Up to 31/12/1944 1,401,462 KIA and 1,135,414 MIA (although having done a mere statistical analysis, a projection using some 7,000 samples from the card index of the Wehrmachtauskunststelle (WAst), he usually gives very exact figures up to the last digit!). For 1945, he has only one category "Endkaempfe" -- final battles in Germany --, not differentiating anymore between single theatres; this category is introduced p. 174. Dead in "final battles" are 1,230,000. On p. 265 Overmans assumes that out of these 1,230,000 two-thirds should be attributed to Eastern Front, that is 800,000, about 400,000 known KIA and another 400,000 MIA -- makes a total of ca. 3.563.000 for Eastern Front. Now, this contains dead from all causes: KIA, MIA, accidents, disease, shot by trial, and of course POWs died in captivity. For the last category Overmans has initially "only" 363,000 deaths (according to his analysis based on the card index), although it is widely known that more German POWs died in Soviet captivity. On pp. 288-289 he states that it is plausible that out of the ca. 1,536,000 he has found for MIA on the Eastern Front 1941-1945 one half each are further KIA and further died in POW. By this suggestion he has nearly 1,100,000 died POWs (363,000 + 700,000). And this figure fits very well to that one assessed by the "Maschke commission" (which had used a different approach some years earlier): 1.094.000 dead POWs. --Akribes (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainie as a belligerent.

I removed Ukraine from the belligerents' list. First, the source seems to be incorrect, the actual source seems to be not Abbott Peter, Pinak Eugene. Ukrainian Armies 1914 - 1955 (2004), OspreyPublishing, p41, but Peter Abbott, Oleksiy Rudenko Ukrainian Armies 1914-55, Volume 412 of Men-at-arms series Osprey Publishing, 2004 ISBN 1841766682, 9781841766683. Secondly, I do not understand what concrete source's statement supports the idea that UIA represented whole Ukraine (please, provide a quote). Thirdly, UIA involvement in Eastern Front hostilities insufficient to talk about it as a separate belligerent. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Silver bullet. Don't understand what do you mean. I always support a uniform application of similar criteria to all sides. If I missed something, please let me know.

1. Re: "A non-seperate UIA attacked both Germans and Soviets during the same period" 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian) had only one engagement with the Red Army (Brody). During that battle it fought with (not against) other German divisions, so I do not understand what do you mean. If you mean anti-partisan activity, I doubt it can be considered a separate belligerence.

Re: 2. See the section below.

Re: 3. I didn't remove Croatia because, by contrast to Spain, I found no information on that account (neither pro nor contra). However, you have to take into account that Croatia, by contrast to Spain, was an Axis country. One way or the another, it is not in the list now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Sorry, I just noticed it is still in the list. I am not sure if we really need to have it here, however I am still hot sure if its removal is completely justified. Let's discuss it if you want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not mistook the UIA and 14th SS for one unit. However, the 14th waffenSS division was the sole military unit composed from Ukrainians that was involved in more or less serious engagement with regular Soviet troops. With regards to UIA, it was just a was a group of Ukrainian nationalist partisans acting in behalf of theOrganization of Ukrainian Nationalists. The latter was a Ukrainian political movement, so it could neither represent the Ukrainian nation as whole (you are absolutely right here) nor be considered a separate belligerent (CPSU, or American Democrats weren't a separate belligerents in WWII).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: 1. No. In actuality, I didn't mix them, my point was that 14th division was the only unit composed of the Ukrainians that was involved in more or less serious engagement with the Red Army. Contribution of other Ukrainian formed troops was too negligible to speak seriously about a belligerence.

Re: 2. Al-Qaida didn't claim it represented any nation. It represented itself, and, in that sense, can be considered a belligerent. It is impossible to compare relative military contribution of Al-Qaida in the Afghan war and UIA's contribution in Eastern Front.

Re: 3. I didn't compare UIA and US democrats. I compared OUN and democrats. Democrats, as a ruling party, waged the war against the Axis, however, not Democrats, but the US was a belligerent. We cannot list every political party, having or not having their own military wing, as a separate belligerent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Spannish Blue division, again.

A user Vulturedroid insists on addition of Spain (or Spannish Blue division) as a separate Eastern Front's belligerent. His sole argument is the statement made by the American journalist William Shirer in his brilliant but somewhat obsolete book ("The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"). This statement is: "So successful were he and Keitel with all the satellites that the German High Command calculated it would have 52 "Allied" divisions available for the summer's task--27 Romania, 13 Hungarian, 9 Italian, 2 Slovak and one Spanish." Since Romania, Hungary, Italy and Slovakia were German allies, Vulturedroid concluded that Spain has to be considered a German ally too.
Had this source been the only source available on the subject, I would have no objections to include Spain into the belligerents list. However, other sources and other circumstances exist that do not support such a conclusion.
First, the Shirer's book is old, Shirer was a Hitler's contemporary, and the book is based only on the information available in 1940s-50s.
Second, this book is about Nazi Germany in general, not about Spain. According to WP:V "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." In other words, the articles specifically devoted to some subject are preferable over general books.
What do specialized articles say about the Blue division? Arnold Krammer (Spanish Volunteers against Bolshevism: The Blue Division. Russian Review, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 388-402) says that the Spaniards were dressed in regulation German Army uniforms and, " following their absorption into the Wehrmacht, the volunteers were required to take the standard personal oath to Hitler, under whose authority they were to be fighting." AFAIK, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian and Slovakian armies were dressed in their own uniform, their personnel did not take the standard personal oath to Hitler, and no sources state these troops were absorbed in German Army. So called "Spannish Blue division" in actuality was a 250th Infanterie-Division of German Army. Therefore, neither this division alone, nor Spain as whole cannot be considered an Eastern Front belligerent.
Maybe, Franco retained some degree of control over this division, similar to what Antonescu or Mussolini did with regards to their troops? No. Blue Division's withdrawal in 1943 started as a result of delicate negotiations between Franco and Hitler, and the order to withdraw was passed to the Division's commander by the Supreme Commander of the Army Group North, not by Franco. No other facts exist that Franco had a direct control over his division. (Source: North to Russia: The Spanish Blue Division in World War II. Author(s): Gerald R. Kleinfeld and Lewis A. Tambs. Military Affairs, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Feb., 1973), pp. 8-13).
The above sources, dealing with the Blue division specifically, do not support a conclusion that the Blue division was a separate belligerent either formally or de facto. Therefore, the Blue division cannot be included in the belligerent's list unless new strong evidences supporting such a statement are provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(the following words are against PoVs of user Vulturedroid, which have been deleted by himself)Vulturedroid (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you read more widely than just The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which is only one of thousands of books which cover the fighting on the Eastern Front and is now regarded as outdated and inaccurate (see, for example, Richard E. Evans' introduction to his The Coming of the Third Reich for a discussion of it's shortcomings). The Oxford Companion to the Second World War describes Spain as 'neutral' throughout the conflict and the Blue Division as a 'volunteer' force under German control. While Franco was very sympathetic to the Nazis and permitted (encouraged?) volunteers to serve with the German armed forces on the condition that they fought on the Eastern Front, Spain wasn't a belligerent in the war on the Eastern Front in a meaningful sense. By the way, I'd encourage you to keep the length of your posts down (see WP:TLDR) and focus on discussing the issue, not other editors - I didn't read your above post in any detail due to its length and I doubt that anyone else will. Nick-D (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D, the oath of allegiance to Hitler and the German authority over the members of Blue Division, conclusively prove that they were legally separate from the forces of the Spanish state and hence Spain was not a belligerent during WWII. Vulturedroid believes the Shirer statement that he's quoted a number of times proves otherwise, when it actually just lists the non-German divisions in the theater, and, most importantly, does not directly address belligerency at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history inviting editors to join the discussions on this page. Seeking other editors' views using means such as this is, of course, part of the standard conflict resolution process. Again, please stop focusing on individual editors. Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D, I believe Vulturedroid is focused not on me but on my POV. He uses my name just as a reference on my POV.

Dear Vulturedroid. I think you miss that Shirer's statement can be understood in a different way. As Sturmvogel 66 correctly pointed out, that could be just a list of non-German divisions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Re: "This argument repeats editor Paul Siebert's PoVs" Incorrect. These two editors not repeated my POV but supported it with new arguments. Of course, WP is not a democracy, so not a number of editors matters but their arguments, however, you addressed none of these new arguments (and I wouldn't say my arguments have been "counterproved" by you).--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. He's right, lengthy, so he doesn't need to see what he objects. Being always right, why bother?

321, congratulations. My words deleted so no lengthy. Spain not listed. I give up for good.

Vulturedroid (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "he doesn't need to see what he objects". Incorrect. I read everything you wrote, and I agree that the belligerence of Croatia should be discussed again, because, maybe, there is no sufficient ground to speak about it as a Eastern Front belligerent. However your other arguments are not convincing enough, and that fact, not that your posts were lengthy, or that you were not supported by other editors, is your main problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Central Europe" as part of the Front

Whoever replaced the location from "Central and Eastern Europe" to "Eastern Europe" needs to check their facts. Referring to the UNSD classification is a sure sign of bias as it's a perfectly fine statistical classification, but not applicable in either a historical or socio-cultural context. The region from Estonia to Slovenia is called "Central Europe", live with it. Excuse me, Paul Siebert. Gregorik (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) According to the United Nations Statistics Division Europe is divided onto Western, Eastern, Northern and Southern parts. No Central Europe exists in this classification. By contrast to these four strictly defined regions, Central Europe is vaguely defined territory. Moreover, strictly defined category, Eastern Europe appeared to be combined with vague "Central Europe". Northern Europe appeared to be omitted, Southern Europe (Belgrade) is omitted, whereas some countries were counted twice: for instance, Slovakia is a part of both "central" and Eastern Europe. That is inaccurate and senseless.

With regards precise geography, Eastern front events took place in Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, etc), Northern Europe (Baltics, Finland, etc) Southern Europe (Yugoslavia) and Western Europe (Austria, Germany).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
PS "is a sure sign of bias as it's a perfectly fine" If it can be called a bias, than it is a bias towards accuracy: removal of vague terms (that probably please someone's ear) and replacement them with strict geographical definitions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC) PPS. In addition to vagueness, "Central and Eastern Europe" narrows the actual scope of the conflict. Since a major part of Europe (including Western, Austria, and Southern, Yugoslavia, Europe) were affected, the most correct word should be just "Europe".--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. While most people think of the "Eastern Front" as fighing in Stalingrad and Moscow and even less, Kursk. The reality is that the Eastern Front took place in Central and even southern Europe as well.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Casualty Section

Someone has made a truly great work with editing the casualty section, but some of the fiures do not add up, and without explanation (concerning Soviet Military casualties). What is the reason?

The person who has made this change, could he or she please also take a look at the article German casualties in World War II? EriFr (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As for me, I had made some precision concerning German casualties, will try to do so with the other article--Akribes (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand from the figures, Kirosheev is quoted as a source for "Total dead" but Erlikhman for "KIA / MIA / Non-combat" and "POWs that died in captivity". What is the reason behind this solution? EriFr (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Krivosheev's study is devoted to Soviet military losses, whereas Erlikhman deals with total losses. Accordingly, Krivosheev should me used for KIA/WIA/MIA, whereas Erlikhman for total population losses. With regards to POW died in captivity, a disagreement exist among scholars who should be considered POW and how were just captured civilians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Allright, so the figure concerning POW dead is partially quoted from Erlikhman? Does not Kirosheev give any estimates on this figure?

Actually, I suspect that it is simply the choice of categories in this article that creates a problem, since Total dead is better explained in the article World War II casualties of the Soviet Union. Here, I find it hard to see how the number of Total dead is broken down in categories. If you remove KIA/MIA/Non Combat from Total dead, you will have a number of 804,533 (POW dead in captivity), but who supports a figure close to this number? EriFr (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you use Overmans estimated for German POWs killed which is that he includes figures which he believes were shot whilst surrendering then you must do the exact same for the soviet side and that figure is about 5 million Soviet POWs shot either in captivity or whilst surrendering, you can not have on side confirmed POWs killed vs estimated killed whilst surrenderingGainswings11 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

References

This article needs a lot more references before it can pass GA or even B-class. There needs to be at least one citation per paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you at least atart the review page though?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The war was fought between the German Reich, its allies, and many pro-Nazi volunteers from occupied states, against the Soviet Union, and eventually its allies of the British Commonwealth...

This article's statement is not accurate. First, "many pro-Nazi volunteers from occupied states" is an exaggeration if we compare the number of WaffenSS troops with other Wehrmacht troops and with the Red Army. Second, these volunteers were not separate belligerents. Third, it is not clear for me how did "the British Commonwealth, France, and the United States" participate in the Eastern front hostilities if no British or American troops were there and the only French unit was "Normandy-Neman". This statement contradicts to the info box. I changed it to fix all inaccuracies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Offensive at Estonia: casualities

The source for Red Army casualities during Estonia Offensive don't seem reliable. I'd rather not include these numbers in article as questionable. Olvegg (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Vichy Forces

I see that the Spanish Blue Division is mentioned in the article, so I was wondering, why not the Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism? Sure they didn't have the same illustrious career as their Spanish counterparts, but they were still a sizable contingent of forces sent to fight on the Eastern Front by a non-belligerent. SpudHawg948 (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

I appreciate that the current lead image is somewhat iconic, but it is non-free, and its iconic status does not mean that it can bypass the non-free content criteria. I suppose there is a valid case for including this image in the article (as I would imagine that it would be worth discussing it at some point) but I do feel the lead image should be a free one, if possible. Anyone else got a thought on this? J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

From memory, the image is also believed to be a posed reentaction. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most Eastern front photos are non-free according to present-days Russian copyright law. I doubt if it is possible to find equivalent picture in German archive. WP policy does not separate lede section from a main article. Since no free equivalent is available (another photo of the same event, made by Grebnev [3] is in Russian archive now and is also copyrighted), and because the picture appears in the article namespace the use of this image in the lede fits criteria 1 (No free equivalent) and 9 (Restrictions on location). Therefore, I believe placement of this image in the lede meets non-free content criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The infobox image represents the Eastern Front as a whole- there could be free images illustrating the Eastern Front (even if it is just a map, which is fairly common in milhist articles, as I'm sure you know) and so it is replaceable in that role. If the image was used elsewhere in the article to illustrate that particularly picture (is there perhaps a place for a discussion of it?) then this would be a completely different issue. J Milburn (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but removal of the image under a pretext that is non-free does not follows from non-free content criteria: if the image can be included into the article, it equally can be included into the lede section. With regards to the image's replaceability, theoretically, any image could be replaced (with either another picture or a verbal description). However, it is hard to find a picture that would summarize the Eastern Front article better that the Khaldei's or Grebnev's photographs. The only equivalent would be the animated map similar to , however this gif needs in a serious work before it can be added.
One way or the another, I revert your edit for following reasons:

Firstly, the non-free content criteria do not prohibit non-free photos to be in the infobox (the rules apply no specific limitation on infoboxes), so your reference to these rules was not justified;

Secondly, it is hard to find a picture that would summarize the EF's outcome better that the Khaldei's photo does (your words that it is possible are not supported with any evidence);

Thirdly, you proposed to replace the photo, but in actuality you just removed it without providing any free equivalent.

I restored the image. If you want to replace it with some free equivalent, please, let's discuss what concrete image do you mean, and only after consensus is achieved can we do a replacement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, this isn't how it works. The image is replaceable. This means it should not be used, regardless of whether I or anyone else has replaced it. You accept the fact that it is replaceable- you said above that that map image could be modified to be appropriate, and our non-free content criteria are quite clear. I'm aware that there is no ban on non-free content in the lead, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with this discussion. I have chosen not to replace it as I do not know enough about the subject, and no image is better than an inappropriately used non-free image. This isn't a matter of "we'll use a non-free one for now". J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In actuality, any image is either replaceable or removable: removal of any image from WP will have no absolutely detrimental effect on an article. However, formal application of such a conclusion would mean that no non-free images can be used in WP at all (which is an obvious nonsense). Obviously this kind of wikilawyering| leads us into an impasse, therefore, something is wrong in your arguments.
The fact that some other image theoretically can be used instead of the Khaldei's photo doesn't mean per se that use of this image in an infobox a violation of non-free content criteria. The rules are violated only when some good free equivalent has been found and the fact that it is a good equivalent is recognized by all parties. I see no reason to continue this discussion until you proposed any concrete substituent.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The NFCC are quite clear that non-free content should be removed if it is replaceable, not if it is replaced. Free images exist or could be created that illustrate the Eastern Front in general terms, and so these should be used in the infobox. Again, to compare to biographies, we do not use non-free images of living people until we find a free image- we remove them, as a free image could be created. This is getting somewhat tedious now. It would be in everyone's best interests if you or someone familiar with the article could add a useful free image to the lead, rather than having the article sit there without a lead image or with a misrepresentative one. J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn asked me to take a look at this case. I have to say that I agree with him. This infobox image is only being used to illustrate and is not being used to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. This does not mean that the image has no place within the article; in fact, if it is an iconic image, it almost certainly does. But a better place for that would be in the "End of War: April–May 1945" section, or thereabouts. The infobox image should be one that can act as an image to summarize or represent the entire article. NW (Talk) 00:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The use of the image elsewhere in the article is another issue entirely- I agree there is potentially a place for it, but certainly not one by default. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firstly, your arguments are a result of poor understanding of what policy says. It tells about a free equivalent, not an adequate substitute. For example, a free map can be a substitute for a non-free image, but it is not an equivalent. What is an equivalent of the photo? Only another photograph, or picture showing the same event. If such a picture exists, we cannot use a non-free photo, however, if such a picture is not available we can use a non-free photo.. A fact that this photo can be replaced with a map, a photo of another event, of with a verbal description of the same event has no relation to what the policy says. Strictly speaking, everything can be replaced, so it is not an argument.

Secondly, the policy do not apply any specific limitation on the location of non-free images in the article. If this image can be in the article (and you, J Milburn and I agree that it can), it can be anywhere (including the infobox).

Thirdly, with regards to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", this your argument is universal, however, it can be applied to almost everything. Photos, as a rule, do not increase readers' understanding of the topic considerably, so no non-free imaged are absolutely required in WP. However, I probably see no other images that increase readers' understanding of the topic more significantly than the picture of a Soviet solder with the red flag over Reichstag: this is a concise summary of the whole military conflict.
I re-introduce the image, and I propose you to reach a consensus before attempting to remove it again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What you say is generally accurate, but you are missing a key point or two. In response to your first argument, we are talking about replacing the image with another image that serves the same purpose- the purpose of the image in the infobox, by definition, is to represent the battle. This image could easily be replaced by a free image that equally represents the battle. By comparison, the image in the infobox of (say) American Gothic could not be replaced by a free image that equally represents the painting.

Regarding your second point, no, I am not saying that an image cannot be used in the lead because it is non-free- again, see the above example. I am just saying this one cannot be used in the lead in this article because the lead image represents the battle as a whole, and so, in that context, the image is replaceable. This ties again to my example of the "image of the politician" versus the "image of the politician making a speech". Yes, the image of the politician making the speech is irreplaceable, but no, it could not be used in the politician's infobox, as, in that context, it could be replaced by a free image of the politician at any event, at any time.

I don't really have anything to say in response to your third point- you know as well as I do that that argument is useless. Continuing to make it is really not doing you any favours. There are plenty of images that significantly increase reader understanding of the topic. The best example of this is probably modern artwork.

As to your final point, we do not need to reach a consensus to remove a non-free image. We have to reach a consensus to use it. See the non-free content criteria, and note the section on the burden of proof. However, this issue is besides the point in this case, as the page is now protected. J Milburn (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Staggering example of process wonkery run amok. A completely irreplaceable and iconic image, distilling the single largest front in any war, ever, into a single photo...and you're going to spit NFCC and demand it be removed? Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that the article or the encyclopedia is better off without this picture? Or that the anonymous Soviet photographer is going to be harmed by it being included in the article? Maybe User:J_Milburn should convince the Russians should do a do-over, bomb Berlin to rubble again, and climb the Reichstag again, since it's "clearly" replaceable? I call for consensus. Sorry for my stridency, but insanity like this is why people laugh at Wikipedia... Bullzeye ^contribs 01:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This entire discussion is moot. J Milburn's original post here states "its iconic status does not mean that it can bypass the non-free content criteria." It actually does. See WP:NFCI #8. The image qualifies for fair use. Period. Lara 01:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me the image is clearly irreplaceable, in no way harms the photographer, and is historical/iconic. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "This image could easily be replaced by a free image that equally represents the battle." Yes, however, you must realize that it is a content dispute, and non-free content criteria policy has no relation to that, and, therefore, the image has been deleted for a wrong reason.

Re: "we do not need to reach a consensus to remove a non-free image. We have to reach a consensus to use it. " No. The rules are set by WP policy, so there is no difference between free and non-free images if both of them do not violate rules. What is really consensus is needed for is a change of a stable version. You changed a stable version citing a wrong reason, and I expect you to restore it while a new consensus is being achieved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity...J. Milburn, did you even think to inform the relevant Wiki-Project (in this case, WikiProject Military History) per official policy and common courtesy before you refused to allow the image to be returned, citing lack of consensus? Since you neglected to take this step before starting an edit war that required a full protection of the article, I've gone ahead and done so. In the future, before you announce a lack of consensus and swing the hammer, you might try the same. Bullzeye ^contribs 02:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More on that[4]--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for cross-posting, Paul Siebert. Can it be assumed that you intend to further pursue this interpretation of NFCC to all of the World War I and World War II articles that fall under the purview of WikiProject Military History? Bullzeye ^contribs 02:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)