Talk:List of military operations in the West European Theater during World War II by year

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	World War II task force

Scope problems[edit]

This category was originally intended to be North-west Europe. So, why duplicate ops in Italy and south of France, etc, both of which are usually considered as southern Europe or Mediterrranean. And how come the invasion of Yugoslavia is included? Also Habakkuk could be argued as "technology", particularly since it was not implemented. Folks at 137 08:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category currently contains operations for the occupation of Austria, the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland. None of these countries are part of northwestern Europe. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be an appropriate category for these countries at the moment. The best idea might be to rename, or recateogorize, the Eastern Front list of operations as Eastern Europe. Then the invasions of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia could be moved quite properly to this renamed category. R. A. Hicks (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The characteristic of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, IMO, is timing. From the German perspective, "eastern front" probably starts with the invasion of Russia so these three events could be seen as precursors to the war in the west. Even Yugoslavia predates Barbarossa but, I think could be squeezed inti "Mediterranean" ops. It's a grey area. If Austria is "east", then does 8th Army's advance into Austria in 1945 suddenly switch categories? Folks at 137 (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are going to be grey areas and that Yugoslavia could be included in the Mediterranean category (perhaps this category should be renamed Mediterranean and Balkans, or at least defined to include specifically operations in the Balkans) especially since the invasion of Yugoslavia was closely connected to the invasion of Greece, but I disagree with the idea of categorizing some operations on the basis of timing when the overwhelming majority of operations are categorized on the basis of geography. IMO the German invasions of both Czechoslovakia and Poland should be included in the Eastern Europe category, as should the Soviet occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Don't forget that the invasion of Poland was not exclusively a German affair. In addition, there are some uncategorized operations on the main page related to the German occupation of Hungary that potentially could be included in the Eastern Europe category (the less attractive alternative would be including them in a Mediterranean and Balkans category). That leaves Austria in a grey area open to debate. R. A. Hicks (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current split is nominally by theatre but this implies geography, timing and protagonists. Take Yugoslavia. Most of the time, it fits neatly into Mediterranean since Tito and the rest were supplied and supported via the Med. This breaks down when the Red Army gets involved. I tend to think of the "Eastern Front" (NOT "Eastern Europe") as axis v. Red Army and its local allies; it was almost a separate war and most histories treat it as such. On this basis, the liberation (or what you will) of the Balkans and Central Europe is Eastern Front or Mediterranean depending on whether eastern or western allies were involved. If we were to divide purely by geography, then Poland would fall into a separate category (central) to Belorus and Ukraine (eastern) - clearly a nonsense, exacerbated when there's an argument over which boundary to use (as there surely would be). On the other hand, Scandinavia is geographically isolated but influenced on all sides, so it makes sense to use the Nordic task force definition, which is cultural as well as geographic. Yes, there are overlaps, but I think they're manageable. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to define "Eastern Front as axis v. Red Army and its local allies", then that should include German and Soviet operations in Finland, particularly along the Finnish-Soviet frontier. These operations currently are categorized as Scandinavian, which contradicts both your own definition of Eastern Front and the typical approach followed by historical accounts. R. A. Hicks (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RATTLE[edit]

Should RATTLE be included? It was given a code-name like a military operation even though it was actually a conference. It was held in 1943 but perhaps should be listed under OVERLORD. --jmb (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger[edit]

The list, List of Axis named operations in the European Theatre, was created in late 2008. It substantially covers the same ground as the List of World War II military operations (and its subsidiaries) although there are omissions in both. A merger is desirable to avoid duplication of effort and to maintain a single reference source. The "List of World War II military operations" family is the more established of the two (created 2006 as a result of reorganisation of a yet older list), more complete, more organised and should be the single source. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]