Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive 11

Were the killings of Jews by Einsatzgruppen "executions" or "murders"?
There is currently a dispute as to whether the shooting of Jews by Einsatzgruppen should be described as "executions" or "murders" in the caption to the infobox images. In favor of using the latter term, I note that "execution" carries with it the connotation of a killing sanctioned by a lawfully constituted judicial authority after an individualized adjudication of guilt. Surely the actions of the Einsatzgruppen in rounding up people and shooting them do not even have the form, much less the substance, of judicial killings. Rather, as crimes against humanity, the killings of Jewish civilians are properly described with the term "murders". DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * After much thought, i believe each word has equal right to be used in the text. In short, the definitions of 'execution' and 'murder' are so subjective that both can be made to fit. Defining your own paradigms on a word to make it sound more appropriate, is essentially logical fallacy in this case as the word is going to be read without such a context in the text. In solution to this i would recommend using a situationally un-biased word such as 'killing'. (Cesdeva (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC))


 * Really, I don't think anyone is going to mistake the Holocaust for some "judicially sanctioned" action. "Execution" indicates formal organization while "killed" and "murdered" do not. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, yes, "execution" can be used to imply a process of law, but in this case anyone reading the piece will surely already know that the "process of law" was the issuing of blanket orders empowering the German armed forces to commit any attrocity they liked. "Execution" also implies organisation, and thus is in some ways more appropriate than "murder" which does not. Using the term "execution" does not mean that Wiki is adopting an approving tone toward Nazi war crimes, nor is it necessary for Wiki to be openly condemnatory towards Nazi war criminals - just let the facts speak for themselves.
 * RFC Comment: This is easy - use the word that sources predominantly use. I recall seeing "murdered" in this context but I'm not a substitute for quality sources. --Dailycare (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  RfC Comment I think that it should definitely be "murders." Killing Jews is sick and is cold-blooded murder. An execution could be described as capital punishment or death for consequences. I don't even know how this is disputable. 68.84.125.66 (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  RfC Comment Firstly I have to question the false dichotomy used here - the English language has a lot of terms which are used to describe the actions of the Einsatzgruppen. "Murder" and "execution" are just points on a continuum between "non-condemnatory" and "condemnatory". Why not "slaughter"? Why not "kill"? Why not "massacre"? Any of these terms could be used, our options are not restricted to the two given here.

Finally, I have to ask what term is used in the source material from which the photo is taken. If it specifies a term, then that's the term that I'd lean towards unless there were obvious reasons not to. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * RfC Comment Neither. As is clear, execution is a loaded term. Be simple, straightforward and accurate. The caption should refer to "killing" or "shooting"; that's what's happening. -- Cooper 42 (Talk)(Contr) 15:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The source no longer exists. It was taken from the US Holocaust Museum site, but the URL is dead and a search of their photos doesn't turn it up again. -- Cooper 42 (Talk)(Contr) 15:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC Comment: I have found the original image, it is here. The caption says: Erschießung von Juden (?) durch Angehörige einer Einsatzgruppe (?). I believe the correct translation is "shooting of Jews ..." but a native German speaker may want to correct me. Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If so, "shooting"/"killing" would seem to be the correct term. No need to take a particular POV FOARP (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RfC Comment - Obviously whatever the sources suggest. That said, Katyn Massacre uses "execution" a lot, so I don't really see serious POV issues with that term.--Staberinde (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * RFC Comment: As Dailycare said, this is easy: The Einsatzgruppen Trial charged and convicted surviving the leaders of all the Einsatzgruppen units of murder (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_Vol-IV.pdf). So these deaths were authoritatively deemed murders, not executions.  For example: "One of counsel has characterized this trial as the biggest murder trial in history."  The second-most commonly-used term at this trial was "extermination" which has connotations I don't think anyone would be comfortable with. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Murders is the better choice of the two. Also killings, exterminations, slaughter, etc. Execution supposes a legal process has been carried out against the person, which was not usually the case. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think "murders" is very neutral or encyclopaedic. I suppose "executions" could be confusing. I would prefer "killings" or "shootings". Neljack (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment "Killings" is more accurate than "shootings", because gas vans were also used by the Einsatzgruppen starting in 1942 (Longerich 2012, p 548). -- Diannaa (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Prisoners who died in Captivity
the number of german POW who died in captivity is wrong. there are no official records as anyone can imagine but those sources are good estimations.

"Christian Hartmann: Unternehmen Barbarossa. Der deutsche Krieg im Osten 1941–1945. C.H. Beck, München 2011, S. 115 f.; speziell zu den angegeben Opferzahlen der Wehrmacht siehe auch Rüdiger Overmans: Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. 3. Auflage. Oldenbourg, München 2004, ISBN 3-486-20028-3, S. 255 (5,3 Mio. Gesamtverluste), S. 277 (2,7 Mio. Verluste an der Ostfront), S. 288 (1,1 Mio. in sowjetischer Kriegsgefangenschaft gestorbene deutsche Soldaten) (Zugl.: Freiburg/Br., Univ., Diss., 1996)"

one of which is a dissertation and all of them use original sources. 1+million is also logical given the numbers of the official wehrmachts records. 300k is way to low as number. 100k POW died in captivity after Stalingrad alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.114.46 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

who deleted my changes? if you like to start an edit war we can arrange that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.114.46 (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

and again someone violated the edit. the sources are here and the numbers in the article don't correlate with the sources, so the article should be based on the sources. changed greater german military dead to 1,1mio according to the source. Swunt10 (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Read 2 lines above the graph you will see " Included in this figure of Axis losses is the majority of the 2 million German military personnel listed as missing or unaccounted for after the war. Dr Rűdiger Overmans states that it seems entirely plausible, while not provable, that one half of these men were killed in action and the other half dead in Soviet custody". After the The Berlin wall fell, German historian Dr Rűdiger Overmans and his team went through all the archives in eastern Germany and in the former USSR and they found the real numbers, the numbers you are referring to originate from 1949 or the 1970s and are inaccurate. The 364 are provable. Also these numbers that you want to write are estimated whilst in captivity or whilst surrendering, that same numbers for red army losses would be 5 million to 5.5 million so you need to compare the same thing vs the same thing. The numbers in the graph are confirmed or as close as you can get to confirmed deaths in captivity.Nickid12 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

right, OK I understand.. but soviet records are not trustworthy. not even a little bit. why would we use the soviet number even though everyone (at least most sources I can find) agrees that the actual number is between 600k and 1,1 million? the 364k is just the lowest possible number since the soviets accounted for them. if we use the official soviet numbers why don't we also use the official nazi numbers for soviet POW's? like you said. compare the same thing vs the same thing. but this approach seems to violate WP:NOR. the soviet numbers are original sources and as such sometimes quoted by different people, but this is not equal to third party sources. the third party sources (who usually quote original sources) say that the number is higher than that. so what number should be used? 364 can't possibly be right. 100k from the 6th army died after stalingrad alone. they are hardly 1/3 of all POW's who died. so many germans died as POW's that almost half of the wehrmachts soldiers who have a wiki page state that they died as POW's in the late 40's and early 50's. that may have to do with the fact that higher officers usually are overrepresented in wikipedia compared to the common soldier but this makes it really hard to take the 364k number seriously. it sounds a bit like the usual communist propaganda. Swunt10 (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't understand, this isnt propaganda soviet numbers nothing like that, this is Dr Rűdiger Overmans and his team conducted a statistical survey of the records at the military search service Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt). The Overmans study put the total German military war dead at 5.3 million. Overmans found that the wartime casualty figures compiled by German High Command were incomplete because the reporting system broke down during the chaos of the war. Many men who went missing or were taken prisoner were not included in the German High Command (OKW) figures. Overmans maintains that many individual reports of casualties were not processed by the end of the war and are not reflected in the German High Command (OKW) statistics. Rüdiger Overmans puts the number of German POWs dead in the Soviet captivity at 1.0 million. Based on his research, Overmans believes that the deaths of 363,000 POWs in Soviet captivity can be confirmed be the files of Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), he maintains that it seems entirely plausible, while not provable, that 700,000 German military personnel listed with the missing actually died in Soviet custody. That is why your numbers are wrong, everything that is not Overman is wrong. And the Soviet dead numbers are the deaths recorded by the Germans in the German archives. As I wrote the numbers are deaths in a camp, the numbers of who died, whilst surrendering or in transit would be about 5 million to 5.5 million Soviet POWs in Axis hands vs about 1 million German Pows in Soviet hands. But the graph is not about that it is about confirmed provable deaths in a camp. If one wants more info and details one simply clicks the blue links at the top of the page and there one gets several pages about the details. And Stalingrad was an anomaly, most Germans that were left were wounded, malnourished, sick and very weak, that is why so many died when they surrendered, this was not the standard case on the whole war. Nickid12 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

the description clearly says. "Prisoners who died in Captivity" this is NOT equal to 'prisoners who died in one camp or another, excluding death marches and the process of surrendering as well as SS soldiers who got shot on sight'. soldiers are in captivity as soon as they are surrendered and disarmed. captivity means being a POW, not locked up in an official camp. this is confusing and counter intuitive. maybe changing the description to 'Prisoners who died in POW camps' would resolve that problem. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/captivity from Latin captivitas, from captivus 'taken captive' (see captive) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/captive?q=captive a person who has been taken prisoner

Swunt10 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As it is written a few lines above the graph, "Included in this figure of Axis losses is the majority of the 2 million German military personnel listed as missing or unaccounted for after the war. Dr Rűdiger Overmans states that it seems entirely plausible, while not provable, that one half of these men were killed in action and the other half dead in Soviet custody", It was my mistake using the word camp and trying to formulate my sentence that way, I apologize for that. All information one needs is available right there directly above the graph a few lines up it is clearly stated. And as I wrote the Soviet POWS who died in Axis hands would be 5 million to 5.5 million, but that is only plausible not provable.Nickid12 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

the description of the table and the text above must be correct. you can't write untrue information in the description and in the table and than say 'well but it is somehow explained somewhere'. it's clear that more than 300k germans died in captivity. 300k might have died in to POW camps themselves but then it should say so in the description. it should be changes from 'died in captivity' to 'died in POW camps' in the text above the table and in the description of the table. everything else is misleading Swunt10 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not in pow camps that was a mistake from my side, it is what Dr Rűdiger Overmans and his team and their work with the Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt) have concluded. Nickid12 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

deleted sentence
this sentence is clearly wrong, badly written, without sources and not at all encyclopedic. so I deleted it. "but Nazi troops who captured Red Army soldiers frequently shot them in the field or shipped them to concentration camps for execution."

now this sentence appeared again. this time with a source. but in the source, this sentence or anything like it, is nowhere to be found. "Most Axis POWs were released from captivity several years after the war, but Nazi troops who captured Red Army soldiers frequently shot them in the field or shipped them to concentration camps for execution[104]." the source seems to be wrong. also this sentence is really badly written. it implies that most soviet POW got shoot, which is not true and it's also not true that soviet POW's were shipped to concentration camps. some, maybe yes, but not all. 99% where shipped to POW camps. this sentence should be deleted. Swunt10 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The book is the source, and the text is correct most did get shot/killed/left to starve, from june 1941 until march 1942, 96% of all Soviet prisoners of war died, they were taken to camps and left to die there with no food or water because Hitler had no use for them, Herman Goring even writes in his journal that the only problem about this is that they captured a German guard and ate him. Things only changed when it became apparent that the war would not be over quickly and that is when Hitler gave the order to start using them for labour. Anyway one thing at a time first read what I wrote above and then read it again, then we can talk about this. Nickid12 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I know what a source and a reverence is. I just wanted to point out that I searched the book and the sentence or anything like it didn't pop up and is nowhere to be found. the sentence is so suspicious that I doubt that any historian would ever write this suggestive drivel in a book. firstly concentration camps are not for executions per se. there are many kinds of concentration camps. from ordinary POW camps up to extermination camps, everything can be called concentration camp. secondly, the wehrmacht send the POW to the POW camps and not random nazi troops. the SS or others didn't have anything to say. the wehrmacht was the occupation force and they surly didn't send the soviet POW to camps for execution. they send them their for incarnation. you said 'only compare same things with same thing'. well then why would you start a sentence that talks about releasing axis POW's after the war, but then not continue with comparing it to releasing soviet POW's at the immediate end of the war? why change the subject randomly in the middle of the sentence to the process of surrendering and the mistreatments of POW's by nazis? that's not logic and not fair. nazis shoot communist commissars on sight, only for a few months, than the order (largely ignored and opposed anyway) was sacked, and soviet troops shoot SS soldiers on sight basically throughout the war. so why mention only the nazi atrocities and greatly inflate them and not the soviet's? and why start the sentence with one thing and then compare it to something completely different? in my book, these sentences should be re written or deleted. there is no source for it and the logic is flawed as well as WP:UNDUE weight is a problem. Swunt10 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I will only start on a new subject once the old one is resolvedNickid12 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see the other discussion as concluded so I will move onto this one. Most means more than 50% not as you assume almost all which is 97-98-99%. The sentence says nothing about the SS, in German records 5.28 million Soviet were registered as German prisoners out of which 3,6 million died, and out of a plausible 7.5 million soviet soldiers who were surrendering, in transit or had surrendered a plausible 5-5,5 million died. And they were concentration camps, most did die, especially until march 1942 when Hitler gave the order to use them as labour, until that moment 96% of all Soviet pows died because they were just taken to camps and given no food or water and as I replied to you Herman Goring even writes in his journal that the only problem about this is that they captured a German guard and ate him. The source for the sentence is the book Richard Overy where he writes about it specifically, the only part that is poorly written is the word "execution" it should be "to die" Nickid12 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

you said only compare same things with same things to me earlier. now you started the sentence with the releasing of axis troops but then you change the subject mid sentence to the process of surrendering soviet troops by claiming that "Nazi troops who captured Red Army soldiers frequently shot them in the field" well this is undo weight. soviets shot SS soldiers in the field as well and the wehrmacht didn't just shot any or most red army soldiers, like you make it sound, but only commissars. the commissar order survived just one year anyway and was rarely carried out (maybe a 1000 times, in any case way less then SS soldiers got shot by soviets). so why change the subject from releasing troops after the war to a one sided nazi bashing? also "shipped them to concentration camps for execution" is not true. the wehrmacht send POWs to their POW camps for incarnation. what happened to them afterwards was not known to the front commanders who had other things on their mind. no front commander signed any document ever that said "send to camp for execution". also the last sentence is wrong. like I said before the commissar order survived only for 1 year. you make it sound as if this was standard practice all the time. the commissar order was also not well enforced for the short time that it existed. WP:NPOV quote: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

another thing is that I lengthly explained that 'concentration camp' means not to much. I hope you read my comment. every prison or camp is a concentration camp. this means nothing. concentration camp does not mean 'extermination camp'. there are many kinds of concentration camps where most if not all prisoners survived. e.g. POW comps for western soldiers, political prisons before the start of ww2 aso. and others where most prisoners died like extermination camps for jews. calling something concentration camp does not mean this (your quote)"And they were concentration camps, most did die, especially until march 1942" also if most did die until 1942 then why not mention it in the sentence? why make it sound as if one year (1941-42) is a good representation for the entire 2ww? WP:NPOV btw the correct name is POW camps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps#Types_of_camps also I would like to know the exact book page of the source. I couldn't find anything like these sentences in the book. Swunt10 (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You make several points, I replied to to part above execution in my previous post. I see your point about going from Axis to Nazi, yes that will be corrected. You are however wrong about the Wermacht they didn't "just shot commissars" that is wrong. The Wermacht both shot surrendering soldiers and civilians in great numbers, this is known from many sources, but the greatest sources is a huge mansion the British housed many captured senior German officers in, and the British intelligence had filled the whole mansion with microphones, all conversations were recorded and written down. Also, British Historian Ian Kershaw writes that "The Nazi revolution was broader than just the Holocaust. Its second goal was to eliminate Slavs from central and eastern Europe and to create a Lebensraum for Aryans. ..., it barbarised the German armies on the eastern front. Most of their three million men, from generals to ordinary soldiers, helped exterminate captured Slav soldiers and civilians. This was sometimes cold and deliberate murder of individuals (as with Jews), sometimes generalised brutality and neglect. ... German soldiers' letters and memoirs reveal their terrible reasoning: Slavs were 'the Asiatic-Bolshevik' horde, an inferior but threatening race. Only a minority of officers and men were Nazi members." As you can see the letters the soldiers wrote also collaborates this. And there are several historians who write the same thing that the Wermacht did indeed shot and kill surrendering soldiers and civilians in great numbers. And to your final point, a concentration camp is where the primary function is to die, and other functions such as work is secondary. So if person A can work for 5, 6 weeks that is fine as long as they die, that is a concentration camp. Nickid12 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

you really should read the wiki page for concentration camps. at no point was the function of concentration camps to kill as many people as possible. you completely mix up the concepts of extermination camps, more or less regular concentration camps and POW camps in the east. that's not acceptable for a wiki page. it's bad enough if normal people and history teachers don't know the difference. concerning the letter of some german soldiers, you should read the letters from british soldiers who called the germans huns and bombed all their cities into the ground (remember the british invented strategic bombing and bombed germany first), killing civilians on purpose. or the letters of US soldiers and what they thought about the japanese. this is no reason to not write the last two sentences of this page in a neutral point of view. and you should still include the dates for the commissar order. it's your decision to include this sentence but then you should not make it sound as if 1 year represents the entire 2ww. also if you claim that the wehrmacht, in an organized way, illegally shoot POW's in great numbers you should provide a source. this massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Acqui_Division is called. " one of the largest prisoner of war massacres of the war" "and one of the largest-scale German atrocities to be committed by Wehrmacht troops " 5000 people died and you can argue, as the wiki page does, that since it was treason committed by the italians, the wehrmacht had the legal right to court martial them. "a sergeant informed each officer that he was being executed for treason, which, given Badoglio's decision to permit unification of the German and Italian armies in Greece under German command, was technically true.[13]". so how come this is one of the biggest massacre by the wehrmacht? your quote from the historian is just the normal un-sourced blah blah from people who like to repeat nazi propaganda just to remind everybody that they where really not nice chaps. of course there was racial hatred and nazi ideology but writing this drivel isn't correct. 3 million soldiers helping to kill all slaves? yeah right and the british bombing all german cities was their way to kill all germans or what? nonsense. btw at the end of ww2 germans died in allied pow camps as well, but in contrast to the germans during the war, the allied had the foresight that massive amounts of soldiers would surrender, massive amounts of food, fresh water and the logistic reserves for transport of water, people and food that they could have spared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinwiesenlager according to the US 3000-10.000 died according to Arthur L. Smith 8.000-40.000. so according to you we should now go to the 'western front' page and add the sentence "Most allied POWs were released from captivity after the war, but allied troops who captured axis soldiers frequently shipped them to concentration camps to die" right? you logic, not mine. Swunt10 (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have now provided 2 sources for the statement, the first source is as it is linked just after the text is Richard Overy in "The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia ", the second is Ian Kershaw in " Stalinism and Nazism: dictatorships in comparison" both are well renowned historians, here is now a third, British historian Richard J. Evans in "In Hitler's Shadow" writes "from the beginning of the war against the Soviet Union, the Wehrmacht fought a genocidal war of "extreme brutality and barbarism"... The Wehrmacht officers regarded the Russians as "sub-human", were from the time of the invasion of Poland in 1939 telling their troops that war was caused by "Jewish vermin", and explained to the troops that the war against the Soviet Union was a war to wipe out what were variously called "Jewish Bolshevik subhumans", the "Mongol hordes", the "Asiatic flood" and the "red beast"". 3 reliable sources by 3 historians. And about "most", as I have written means more than 50%, most axis prisoners did not die in western captivity that is wrong. 2,8 million German soldiers were captured by The Western Allies between D-Day and April 30 1945, And the The Western Allies held after the war 7,6 million prisoners, most of them did not die Nickid12 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I said nothing about most. do you really read my comments or do you reply before reading to the end? you and I used "frequently" to describe the concentration camp stuff. also thanks for repeating the official nazi propaganda about the "mongol hordes" and subhumans and finding more anglo american sources who used these sentences. this is such a great generalization. the same phrase is used by allied soldiers to describe germans.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#20th_century_use_in_reference_to_Germans Churchill referred to the invasion of the Soviet Union as "the dull, drilled, docile brutish masses of the Hun soldiery, plodding on like a swarm of crawling locusts." "There are less than 70,000,000 malignant Huns, some of whom are curable and others killable," it's so easy to find sources to this stuff isn't it? I can also show you sources that contradict your "well renowned historians". eg.g. Ferguson, Niall (2004). "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat". War in History 11 (2): 148–92. and there's even a page number, unlike your source in the article. nobody says that the wehrmacht was nice but that doesn't mean that wikipedia should not be neutral. this sentence "but Axis troops who captured Red Army soldiers frequently shot them in the field or shipped them to concentration camps to die" is just not true. the same can be said about everybody. "frequently shot in the field and shipped to concentration camps" why change the subject from releasing POW's to this universal accusation that could be applied to the soviets as well as the western allies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD4bDHTHdpU also they where not send to camps to die. they where send their for incarnation. as you said yourself after the first year conditions where better. still you put no dates on the "send to die" or "commissar order" stuff. this is just not acceptable. you should nat change the subject mid sentence and you should not make it sound as if one year is equal to the entire 2ww. Swunt10 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The western allies did not frequently shoot German POWs and most German POWs in captivity by the Western allies did not die that is inaccurate, the Western allies held 7.6 million out of which according to Dr Rűdiger Overmans 7,000-12,000 died " Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriege. Page 246". However out of a plausible 7.5 million Soviet POWs 5.5 million of them died in German captivity, things got better yes from June 1941 to the spring of 1942 96% (2,8 million) of all Soviets POWs died, but from that until the German surrender another 2,5-3 million Soviet POW would die which is above 50%. Most German POWs in Soviet captivity did not die, however far more so did than in Western allied captivity, so the same can not be said for everyone a Soviet prisoner would most likely die, whilst a German one either in Western allied hands or in Soviet hands, would not.
 * About the sentence I have provided three sources and will now provide the page/s " Ian Kershaw; (Stalinism and Nazism: dictatorships in comparison, page 150), Richard J. Evans;  (In Hitler's Shadow, pages 58-60). In English wikipedia it is common to use English sources but here is a German one making it nr 4 that supports the sentence. German historian Jürgen Förster; ( The Wermacht, page 504) That the German army would "free itself from all elements among the prisoners of war considered Bolshevik driving forces. The special situation of the Eastern Campaign therefore demands special measures [an euphemism for killing] which are to be carried out free from bureaucratic and administrative influence and with a willingness to accept responsibility. While so far the regulations and orders concerning prisoners of war were based solely on military considerations, now the political objective must be attained, which is to protect the German nation from Bolshevik inciters and forthwith take the occupied territory strictly in hand." . And I provide another historian making him nr 5, he is an expert on the German army, Omer Bartov; (Germany's War and the Holocaust, page xiii) "that the Wehrmacht was a willing instrument of genocide, and that it is untrue that the Wehrmacht was an apolitical, professional fighting force that had only a few "bad apples""". So anglo speaking historians are not be used except by you, and then you do not provide the information just a book and page nr nothing of what the text says, and you use a highly controversial historian? I have provided now 5 different historians, with quotes, books and page numbers who all collaborate the sentence Nickid12 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Soviet vs anti-Semitism
I recently tried to add :

"As the Nazi leadership had to find a justification for the 1941 campaign against the Soviet Union, they founded the attack with the "defense of the West against Bolshevism" and against the "Jewish Bolshevik subhumans". In 1942, the Nazis published an anti-Soviet pamphlet titled "Der Untermensch" (The Subhuman) which was given to all members of the SS, the pamphlet urged the SS to fight against Bolshevism. Nazi propaganda labeled Soviets as the "Mongol hordes", the "Asiatic flood" and the "red beast"."

This was reverted for allegedly twisting anti-soviet with anti-semitic but the thing is, the Nazis did use these terms to describe the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks according to the Nazis were "Jews", Hitler hated the Russian state since 1917 when it had according to his own words being overtaken by "Jewish Bolsheviks".

I fail to see how I inappropriately confused the two. Anti-soviet was hardly different to anti-semitism within Nazi propaganda, these type of text "Jewish Bolshevik subhumans" "Jewish subhumans" "Asiatic hordes" "red beasts" etc etc were used to stiffen the attitudes to fight against the Soviet Union.

From the Untermensch article:

"Another example for using the term "Untermensch," this time in connection with anti-Soviet propaganda, is another brochure, again titled "Der Untermensch", edited by Himmler and distributed by the Race and Settlement Head Office. SS-Obersturmführer Ludwig Pröscholdt, Jupp Daehler and SS-Hauptamt-Schulungsamt Koenig are associated with its production."

The Jewish Bolsheviks were part of the anti-soviet propaganda used by the Nazis, the Soviet Union leaders the Bolsheviks were "Jews" in Nazi propaganda.--Windows66 (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Image name for collage
See File talk:EasternFrontWWIIcolage.png to discuss the issue. Dustin ( talk ) 22:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Image showing casualty figures in Europe
I think this image needs adjustments: 1. The number of German dead on the "Western front" seems to be too low. Does it include the dead in Northern Europe (maybe this should not be include in the Western front), POW dead in Western allied custody and those dead in sea and air battles on the Western front (see what Overmans calls "Other fronts")? Also, how many of those dead in the final battles in Germany 1945 does this figure include? 2. The number American dead on the Western front does only represent those dead in combat, the figure is missing those military dead from other causes. It is thus incomplete. 3. Where are the Polish dead on the western front? 4. If German dead in Northern Europe should be included in the figure of German dead on the "Western front", where are then the Norwegian dead? I know the image is called "World war II military deaths in Europe by theater", but obviously, those dead in the Winter war are not included. Maybe this should be explained to the reader. Best regards

EriFr (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(I have updated this question by August 2014.)
 * I agree. It seems at the image is an error. Look here --Unterstrichmoepunterstrich (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Involvement of Italian Social Republic
Given that some elements of the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana served on the Eastern Front in 1944 under Luftwaffe command, should that nation be added to the infobox? Capt Jim (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree (see Manstein, Erich (2004). Lost Victories: The War Memoirs of Hitler's Most Brilliant General. Minneapolis: Zenith Press. ISBN 0-7603-2054-3.) Also add to the casualty tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.145.40 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Parallel war
I find it a bit odd that Finland is placed in this article just part of the Axis forces. Finland did in fact cooperate with Germany and would probably have cooperated with simply anybody willing to help with Soviet Union attack first in Winter War. The Continuation War also broke out after Soviet Union bombing several Finnish cities. "Finland adopted the concept of a "parallel war" whereby it sought to pursue its own objectives in concert with, but separate from, Nazi Germany, as "co-belligerents"", as also expressed in Wikipedia. In other articles of WW2 of Eastern Front, this has expressed more accurately than in this one. Perhaps similar text e.g. like this could be added in this article also, "Finland was a co-belligerent that launched its own offensive on 25 June, after Soviet Union attack. It was not a member of the Axis powers, and the Finnish offensive was coordinated with but distinct from this operation." Pjantune (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Eastern Front (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060521175621/http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl:80/83293_1.html to http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/83293_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Biased against Romania
"With the corridor towards Kiev secured by mid-July, the 11th Army, aided by two Romanian armies, fought its way through Bessarabia towards Odessa." So. Wrong. It's not the Romanian Armies that aided the German Army, it was the other way around. See Operation Munchen and Siege of Odessa if you don't believe me. So their places in that phrase should be swapped. Afterall, the German participation in the Siege of Odessa is next to negligeable, let's be real here. All 3 armies were under the nominal command of Romanian Leader Ion Antonescu, forming "Army Group Antonescu".

"Soviet armies had congregated on either side of the city, specifically into the Don bridgeheads that the Romanians did not reduce, and it was from these that they struck on 19 November 1942." Disgusting. You scapegoat us for the failure of the Germans. Our General Petre Dumitrescu asked them over and over for permission to eliminate those bridgeheads, but the Germans refused. They also refused to supply us with any signifficant equipment, despite repeated asks and knowing how badly equipped we were. If you want to blame someone here, blame the ignorance of the Germans, not an Army that did it's best in such harsh conditions, that fought to the last man, against all odds, like the Romanian Army.

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Gday. I note that the text in this article that you wish to change does seem to be referenced so as I said in my edit summary if you believe the current wording is incorrect please provide references which support your interpretation. Also please do not change the meaning of referenced text as you did here as this causes issues with text-source integrity. Very often there is contradictory information available in two seemingly reliable sources which cover the same subject. In these circumstances both interpretations should be included in the article (with appropriate attribution to each view point) as long as they are not fringe theories. In this case I have no knowledge of this topic so I cannot comment on the validity or otherwise of your claim, but unless you are able to provide sources to support your opinion the text should not be changed. If you are interested in getting other editors involved (who will likely have more knowledge on this subject than I), I suggest you post a request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The bit about the Battle of Odessa is essentially true, as the Romanians essentially gutted themselves during the battle. The bit on the flanking battles during the Battle of Stalingrad is quite a bit more arguable. It's certainly true that the Germans starved the Romanians of AT guns and equipment in general, but I don't recall any Romanian agitation to attack those Soviet bridgeheads over the Volga and the Don. And I certainly wouldn't say that the Romanian Army fought to the last man, while a few divisions performed very creditably against high odds, plenty of divisions essentially shattered under the Soviet attack and their men routed off the battlefield.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My views essentially reflect those of Sturm. Reliable sources independent of the subject are needed to contrast the treatment of these matters in the article, let alone present only one version of events. For example, Romanian historians may say one thing, Germans another, Russians yet another, if they are credible academic sources, we contrast and compare what they say, we don't just present one version of events. I might add that British or US sources might be given more weight to avoid any natural bias of historians of involved countries. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I really wish people would stop bashing us and calling our army crap because of Stalingrad. The Russians had thousands of tank, high callibre artillery, and knowledge of the land, plus that they had adequate clothes. We, we had next to nothing! And mind you, I think that regarding the conditions, we did just fine! I strongly doubt that Americans or anyone else would have done better in our place.

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Romanian Army had systemic problems with leadership and equipment levels. The vast majority of the officer corps was ill-trained with tactical ideas left over from WWI and treated their men like dirt. In their turn, they were ill-educated, poorly trained, and badly equipped. These problems were best evidenced on the offense, as per the Army's horrendous performance at Odessa. On the defense the Army was quite a bit better and 3rd Army actually withstood the initial assault by the Soviets in Nov '42 quite well. Unfortunately, that just forced the Soviets to commit their armor earlier than they'd planned and the Romanians had nowhere near enough AT guns to beat them off. Thus many, but not all, units shattered; the 20th Infantry Division did quite well, IIRC, and actually maintained its coherence and fought its way out of the developing pocket. Well-trained or elite units tended to be markedly better than the run-of-the-mill infantry divisions; 2nd Mountain Division had a nice little battle around Nalchik and some of the armored formations were quite good. I agree that the Romanians have taken a bit of a bad rap over the years, when they're even mentioned in Western popular sources, but you can't go overboard with your counterclaims either.
 * The best approach is probably to copy the objectionable text here and explain what you think the issues are. That way you and any interested editors can come to some sort of consensus about what changes should be made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The failure of Odessa...was mainly because our best generals were not the ones directing the attack. I'm sure the outcome would have been different if Dumitrescu was commanding the assault. And still, horrendous performance or not, we were still the only non-German Axis force that captured a Soviet Hero City with mostly it's own forces. That's something too, right? Besides, we still fought better than Italy. I mean, our casualties were over double, but when Italy invaded France, while France was crumbling, they still had 6029 casualties compared to the 229 of the French. (See Italian invasion of France, in case you don't believe me.) Personally, I never understood why the Western popular sources act like we didn't exist! Our army was in Crimea, Caucasus, and Stalingrad, yet most of the times they never mention it! It's always the Germans, the Germans and only the Germans...Do you even realize how frustrating, how much it hurts, to know that you did something, that your contribution was more than notable, yet to be completely ignored by some smart-ass nobody? Western historians are not worthy to be called historians. A historian does not MAKE history, he/she collects the facts, preserves them as accurate as possible and spreads them to the world or to those interested! These people completely ignore us and other German allies for mere comodity, while we too fought, we too made sacrifices, we too DIED! If you can't take history for what it is, then why being a historian in the first place?... Romanian-and-proud (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the Axis minor allies tend to get short shrift in western popular accounts of the Eastern Front, even the Finns. And usually what's covered there relates to Stalingrad and the follow-on battles and how the Soviets crushed all four of the Axis minor armies that winter. You can blame laziness and you can blame the language barriers and they'd both be correct. And you can blame the Ceaușescu regime for covering up the history of the Antonescu period, just like how the Hungarian communists covered up Hungarian participation in the war. But our job here is to present a balanced and accurate account of the war, not to right great wrongs. So we need to use RS, non-POV-pushing, historians to source our articles. Which means people who give credit where credit is due and where it is not. Your statement that the Romanian Army took Odessa makes me wonder where you fit on this continuum as they only occupied Odessa after the Soviets evacuated it. So you need to be aware how your own frustration and biases can influence how you assess Romanian performance during the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

These are just details. "The Soviets evacuated it", do you think that if it was taken by the Germans anyone would have cared? They just took it. It wouldn't matter that the Russians evacuated it, the Germans just took it like the rest, they'd say! Instead, when it's a non-German Axis that takes it, everyone delves into details, bringing up facts, everything just to diminish what little of a victory that non-German Axis has! I know what I'm talking about, because I saw statements like "The German-Romanian Army took Odessa" or even worse: "The Germans took Odessa", all of that while the German presence during the battle was next to negligeable! You know, this attitude is really hypocritical: you fought the Germans because they thought they were the best, yet you treat them as such by constantly ass-kissing them and even giving them things that are not theirs! And also being unnecessarily forgiving to their mistakes while putting the blame on others! YEAH! VERY PROFESSIONAL! Oh, by the way, we were not "minor". I don't say we were "major" either, but calling us minor, after all of our massive contribution, is outside of the boundaries of logic and common sense. We were neither of those, we were mid-way. Deal with it. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, I guess that put me in my spot, didn't it? These sorts of rants are pretty unproductive here even though you have some right on your side. Axis minor ally is the common term for everybody other than Italy and Japan; it's unjustly dismissive of the size of the Romanian contribution, but it is the common term in English historiography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are creating a lot of goodwill here. :-)


 * Instead of writing long messages on Talk pages, why not pull some reliable sources together and propose improvements to the article? For such high-profile articles as this one, it's always best to first propose your additions on the Talk page, and then implement them into the article once editorial consensus is achieved. Otherwise, your actions may be perceived as disruptive editing. Hope this helps! K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Vlassov
I entered Vlassov to the roster of leaders and added that he surrendered to signify his surrender and defection. 76.11.111.251 (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Too many commanders in infobox
This list is just too long, the longer Allied column has over 50 names. Generally you should not go over 10, Template:Infobox military conflict recommends upper limit 7.--Staberinde (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, should be shortened to show only the head of command like Hitler/Stalin and maybe General Staff leader. At the moment the list has almost no value. --Denniss (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Guderian
It's doubtful that Guderian is a WP:RS source for the Wehrmacht losses in equipment. It's dated, it's WP:Primary, and it's WP:Biased. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed the content referencing the numbers provided via Guderian. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why it's bias? Guderian is Soviet general?Minhthai1 (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

European bias?
Two statements in this article strike me as questionable: "The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat." While I don't object to the claim that the Easter Front was decisive in determining the outcome of the European portion of World War II, I don't think the article addresses the implied claim that the Eastern Front determined the outcome of the Asian portion of World War II. Also: "It was by far the deadliest single theatre of war in World War II, with estimates of 8.7 to over 10 million military deaths on the Soviet side, out of which between 1.3 and 3.6 million died in German captivity." The numbers on the page World War II casualties suggest that the Asian theater had similar casualty totals. I guess the exact balance depends on how the Asian theater is defined, but this article, and the linked article, don't support this broad claim. Rks13 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit description claims that removing these changes was "Rv to sourced content". There is no sourcing for the existing claims that the Eastern Front had any impact on the war in Asia. The default should not be that I need to show sources to change the pre-existing content, because the pre-existing content was unsourced. As for the casualty counts, my edits are based on the (well-sourced) linked article. Rks13 (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The edit has changed this content, which was sourced:


 * Original:


 * The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat.


 * Rks's edit:


 * The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of the European portion of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat.


 * This is a significant change to sourced material. Per WP:BRD, it appears that the editor who wants to make the change needs to present sources that contradict the sourced statement. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Japan" does not appear in any of your sources. That's my point. Yes, the sources support the claim that the Eastern Front was instrumental in Germany's defeat, but that was only the European portion of the war. I think your references support my edit. If you disagree, find me a quote that addresses the Eastern Front's contribution to Japan's defeat. Rks13 (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup of external links
Hi, I cleaned up the external links area by removing obviously dubious or promotional links. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eastern Front (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709141048/http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf to http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

"Killings of Jews by German Einsatzgruppen in Ukraine" photo description is false
See http://i.imgur.com/AUXBzah.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:C300:41A:1C78:3CDA:F0EC:A47A (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth would partisans in Poland or Russia be wearing Yugoslav uniforms? And if anyone can positively ID the rifle from such a small image, they've got better eyes than I do! Besides, German second-line troops made extensive use of captured equipment, so even if it is a Yugoslav rifle, that really doesn't prove anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't find the source credible. The uniform is without doubt NOT Yugoslavian. He looks like a regular W-SS or WH guy to me but whatever, he isn't from the Yugoslav army. Let's not stray into denial. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed - neo-Nazi garbage. As for the rifle, it could be a Yugo M-24, a Czech vz. 24, or any other 98-pattern rifle the Germans captured by the tens of thousands between 1938 and 1942 and placed into service. Absolutely meaningless. Parsecboy (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The Great Patriotic War name
"It has been known as the Great Patriotic War (Russian: Великая Отечественная Война, Velikaya Otechestvennaya Voyna) in the former Soviet Union and in modern Russia" Shouldn't it read "and in the CIS" instead? At least, Belarus and Ukraine use the term, too.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not true. Ukraine does not use the term. It only uses when discussing the Soviet propaganda. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Definition of 'Eastern Front'
The article lead currently contains the following: "The Eastern Front, as the site of nearly all extermination camps, death marches, ghettos, and the majority of pogroms, was central to the Holocaust."

While I fully endorse linking the fighting in central and eastern Europe to the nazi genocide(s), I am not confident this sentence is really clear or correct. The term "eastern front" surely means the areas of actual combat. Thus e.g. I would not consider the city of Stalingrad to be a part of the eastern front during 1941 or 1944. It was simply a city in the USSR at those points in time. In Aug 42 through Feb 43, the 'front' (combat theater) included Stalingrad.

The Nazi invasions of Poland, the USSR etc. gave the Germans access to the Jewish populations of those regions as well as the sites of most of the ghettos and death camps. But these installations were not part of the 'front' any more than the factories of Chelybinsk or Vienna.

May I suggest we say something like, "Lands occupied by the Germans as a result of fighting on the Eastern Front, combined with the German invasion of Poland and alliance with Hungary, gave the Nazis access to central Europe's Jewish population. These areas were the sites of nearly all extermination camps, death marches and ghettos. The eastern front was therefore central to enabling the Holocaust to occur."

Thoughts?

DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we should take into account that much of the 1941 "Holocaust by bullet" happened in territories under military jurisdiction, mostly in Army Group Rear Areas. The ghettoisation / roundups / massacres continued in the same territories in 1942 and beyond. So I would say that the Eastern Front (assuming we mean territories under military control) was the site of the Holocaust, not just the territories under civilian administration. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * To say this in a slightly different way: The Holocaust occurred both in areas under Wehrmacht control and in areas under civilian control. Using my draft text above, I don't see a contradiction here, but we could perhaps tweak it to clarify the point you raise. Do you have suggested language? DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for a belated response. I don't quite agree with the wording "...gave the Nazis access to central Europe's Jewish population..." (i.e. Jewish population was not a market to gain "access" to). Don't have anything better at this point, sorry. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "....put the Jewish population of central and eastern Europe under nazi rule." ???? DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Misnomer
The article is focused on the invasion of the Soviet Union by the Nazi Germany instead of the World War II Eastern Front. What happened to the mutual invasion of Poland by the Nazi and Soviet troops? Also why is Finland listed as co-belligerent with annotation (until 1944) and the Soviet Union is not listed at all when clearly the Soviets were as such at least in 1939? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Because both of those aspect of the article are accurate. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Result in Infobox
May I suggest we leave the result as 'Soviet Victory' without any qualifiers? Qualifiers are a constant source of argument and back-and-forth revision on many pages, now including this one. It isn't worth the massive time sink of argument. It is a frequent site of OR. It is unnecessary; the full story of the extent of the Soviet victory is described in the article itself. We all have better things to do. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove this Defamatory Tripe
"...while exterminating or deporting most of the existing inhabitants to Siberia and using the remainder as slave labour.[16]" ...including the unreliable sources. Annonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:B086:E900:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Casualties
I'm sorry, but I had to clean this paragraph up.

Examples:

"Axis military deaths were over 5.2 million(out of which 800,000 died in Soviet captivity). 

This confused german deaths with axis deaths. Overmans states that 800.000-1.000.000 germans died in soviet captivity. But "axis" would also include romanians, hungarians, finns, soviet defectors, italians etc..

The article later stated that only 374.000 german POWs died in captivity. This number is way too low and does not consist with the main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II

I also complemented the number of soviet POW death with those in G.I. Krivosheev's study. Krivosheev states, that most of these 3 million killed POWs were not military personnel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

I also corrected this:

"Most Axis POWs were released from captivity several years after the war, but Axis troops who captured Red Army soldiers frequently shot them in the field or shipped them to concentration camps to die"

This "comparative" statement implies that captured axis soldiers weren't killed in the field, which is wrong. The next sentence says:

"Hitler's notorious Commissar Order called for Soviet political commissars, who were responsible for ensuring that Red Army units remained politically reliable, to be summarily shot when identified amongst captured troops."

I think this already indicates that an order was given to shoot certain captured soldiers. It's also incorrect that other from being killed in the field the second option was "shipped to concentration camps to die". They were more frequently shipped to concentration camps to be used as forced laborers, where the mortility rate reached 57%, especially in late 1941. But this article does not focus on the first months of the eastern front alone. So I changed this sentence and added passages from this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_mistreatment_of_Soviet_prisoners_of_war

It now reads: "Most soviet POWs were send to concentration camps to be killed or used as forced laborers. Additionally, millions of soviet civilians were captured as POWs and treated in the same manner. Many died on death marches. It is estimated that at least 3.3 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody, out of 5.7 million. This figure represents a total of 57% of all Soviet POWs and may be contrasted with 8,300 out of 231,000 British and U.S. prisoners, or 3.6%. About 5% of the Soviet prisoners who died were of Jewish ethnicity.[5]" 2003:D1:B3D0:E301:D8EA:DF47:7B4D:517 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eastern Front (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161216063344/http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/failures.htm to http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/failures.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302202411/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/SS2.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/SS2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916093716/http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/barbarossa/index.asp?WT.mc_id=wiki to http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/barbarossa/index.asp?WT.mc_id=wiki

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)