Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive 5

Soviet casualties
Russian-speaking editors may have look at the passage below from this by Professor T. P. Serov (currently I'm lazy to translate):

"...чтобы вы действительно изумились, я приведу вам цифры из учебника военно-полевой хирургии генерала медицинской службы, главного хирурга нескольких фронтов, еврея Еланского Николая Николаевича: "Исключительная тяжесть поражений, вызывающая смертельный исход на поле боя в среднем в 20% случаев на общее число раненых - так называемые "безвозвратные потери" - и на последующих этапах из числа так называемых "санитарных потерь" при некоторых видах ранений до 60-70% случаев"[5].

Таким образом, советский процент потери раненых был такой: 20% раненых умирало прямо на поле боя. Затем их транспортировали, и в дальнейшем умирало ещё 60-70% раненых, что составляет 80-90% всех раненых. Даже если истолковать цифры Еланского в том смысле, что это всего умирало 60-70%, то и это всё равно, как видно из вышеприведённых цифр, превышает процент потерь американских раненых ещё в период их Гражданской войны в середине XIX века. Правильно, это ведь была середина XIX века - время, когда в медицине вообще отсутствовали такие понятия, как стерилизация и стерильность в хирургии. То есть применение мази Вишневского и другие "выдающиеся методы" "самоотверженных" советских убийц в белых халатах оказывало эффект ещё более худший, чем отсутствие стерилизации и стерильности в хирургии девятнадцатого века.

Чтобы закамуфлировать очевидный саботаж, после войны в СССР был выпущен огромный оправдательный "труд" - "Опыт советской медицины во время Великой отечественной войны", аж в 35 томах. Эти 35 томов представляют собой список особенно показательных случаев, историй болезни отдельных раненых и длинные разглагольствования об организации разворачивания военных госпиталей, но отнюдь не о том, как правильно нужно оказывать медицинскую помощь. Это огромное собрание томов имело одну, точнее две, цели: свидетельствовать об "огромных достижениях советской медицины в годы Великой Отечественной войны" и прикрыть те преступления, тот геноцид, который был совершён в отношении советских раненых еврейским медицинским руководством советской военной медицины.

Обратите внимание, что книга еврея Н.Н. Еланского написана под редакцией ещё двух евреев: ген.-лейт. мед. службы С. С. Гирголава, и ген.-майора мед. службы проф. В. С. Левита. Обратите внимание, что всеми авторами по военно-полевой хирургии (как и подавляющее большинство авторов в других областях медицины) являются евреи, как, например, тот же Борис Васильевич Петровский: "Избранные лекции по военной хирургии (военно-полевая и военно-городская хирургия)". Петровский Б.В. Медицина. 1998."

--Brand спойт 01:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Very suspicious fragment. Besides being antisemitic, obviously fudged and incomplete citation (@ beginning) implies it describes something far more innocent than horrendous wounded death toll; i guess rather description only of some minor cases. Looks like rezunizm yet again. 195.98.64.69 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Poland?
Poland is hardly major part of the Allied effort in the great Patriotic war, other than it was liberated by the Soviet Union and Rokossovsky happened to be born in Poland. It could be argued that it was in the Axis for most of the war, as it had most of the death camps there, and the locals didn't exacly object to the these activities. I would have thought the United Kingdom played a much bigger role than Poland, as it was the major allied sea power in this theater. In addition, it provided Air, Intelligence and even Ground Support. I would have thought that the involvement of the UK was bigger than Poland in every aspect, other than some resistance at the end, when Germany was withdrawing. Also, the role Yugoslavia played was probably bigger, and the Nazis would not have dared to have placed a large system of death camps there (like they did in Poland). Wallie 11:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to sound disrespectful but that's a very odd and perhaps offensive conclusion to draw. Poland took one of the highest (maybe the highest) casualty rates of any WW2 combatant. Poland fielded ground forces on *both* the eastern and western fronts. Polish irregular forces are responsible for some of the most courageous (and unfortunately costly) insurgencies of the war.
 * The politics of the war in eastern and central Europe are complex, but there is no way it can be seriously suggested that Poland was a part of the axis at any point. Blaming the Poles for Auschwitz, even while acknowledging some Polish antisemitism independent of the Nazis, is about as valid as blaming the Cubans for prisoner abuse at Guantanamo bay. Poles who 'objected' to Nazi policies got a bullet in the head (unlike Germans, who could stage protests during the war, often without serious repercussions).
 * I am not aware of any UK ground troops or 'ground support' in any part of the eastern front, unless you are referring to special forces units on the ground in Yugoslavia. And those operations were not politically 'pure' either - war rarely is. Poland probably lost more people every day in the Warsaw rising than the UK lost in Yugoslavia from April 1941 to 1945. DMorpheus 13:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * War effort is not measured in the amount of soldiers lost, but in the amount of enemy soldiers killed. With respect, Ko Soi IX 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, I disagree. That is precisely the difference between "effort" and "outcome". But none of this is germane to the article so I will drop it. Regards, DMorpheus 18:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read relevant articles before you join discussions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Conquering Western Europe in 1920s
Regarding this:

Those executed included Mikhail Tukhachevsky, the brilliant proponent of armoured blitzkrieg but also the person who had lost the Polish-Soviet war, a defeat which had prevented Soviets from establishing a base for conquering Western Europe in 1920s.

Ok, I'm not sure how you can judge one's brilliancy like that. If I propose to outfit every missile in US Army with nuclear warhead, am I a brilliant proponent of nuclear warfare? It is still a huge question whether Tukhachevsky's proposals made sense *at the time* or was he just a technocrat.

Nevertheless, what's with "Conquering Western Europe in 1920s". Can someone produce Soviet military plans to invade and conquer Western Europe in 1920? Sure communist ideology predicted another global war against capitalism, but this is ideology. "Conquering Western Europe in 1920s" sounds very specific.

I added "fact" for now - but I think this should be removed or reworded.


 * Done. Soviet foreign policy was pretty cautious and, although there was an assumption in the 1920s that there would be a workers' revolution in Europe (hopefully Germany) there was no serious plan to invade. The idea of imposing communist governments via invasion dates from much later. DMorpheus 15:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate it. Zealander 04:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is Croatia not in the infobox?
Shouldn't Croatia be added. Though untimately a German puppet like Slovakia, I am postive that a number of Croatian troops did fight on the Eastern Front. Discussion? Regards, --Kurt Leyman 16:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Kick in the door" quote citation
I have a citation for the Fact tag that goes with this quote: Gleason, S. Everett, William L. Langer (1953). The Undeclared War, 1940-1941, pp. 533. However, this page does not have inline references, so I am not sure what to do with it. Some sections have notes at the bottom, but shouldn't the whole article? -- Patrick Berry 17:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Finlands role in the attack against Russia (Soviet)
The text as it was before I edited it was definetively wrong. The matter concerrns a central issue continuously discussed by finnish historians and politicians and the battle is hot.

The problem is that no-one wants to be considered a nazi-ally (because nazis are, as everyone knows, evil. The finns and germans coordinated before Operation Barbarossa begun, the efforts of their respective armies. The finnish troops attacked (on the borde of Finland) the Soviet Union but Germany and Finland had no common political goals not to speak of - as the articel said before I edited it - common armies. In Finland people like to say that the finns took advantage of the German attack for their own purpose, to regain what thay had lost in the previous war when Russia had attacked Finland (in what is called the winter war). In my opinioin the finns and the nazis where allies, but the offiial version is that Finland had "a separate war" - hich I think is an euphemism that rejects the connection with tha nzis (or pérhaps I ought to say emphasizes it). Anyway I edited the articel according to the official view as stated a year ago or so by the finnish president Tarja Halonen in a television speech - tand she was of course immidiately critisized by thoseleading historians in Finland that think like I do, that that is an euphemism and... so on, as already described.

Anyway, the formulation that I edited away was surely wrong - the finnish troops did never even see the german troops that thought 100-200 kilometers to the south on the other side of the Gulf of Finland. Now the text is at least pretty much correct.(I am a finn myself and apologize for my not so good english as i would like it to be:)

--80.222.32.15 03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is simple historical edditing the Nazies lost so the Finns want to distance them selves from the loser as much as possible, if the nazies had won then the Finns would have written how great and commited allies they were but now since the nazies lost the Finns distance them self from the losers. Mainquick 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your view repeats the propaganda that Stalin and Molotov gave at that time. No finnish soldier from the finnish army of 450.000 men did ever be under nazi command. That is pure communist propagande, or better still, to be exact, pure bullshit.


 * See the other articles in Wikipedia on the same subject. I do not understand how one article can, contradicting all the other, express communist propaganda that has nothing whatsoever to do with facts.


 * Ouch, forgot to sign - here is

--80.222.32.15 05:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Poland joins the war in 1945
Since this article does say "Some sources include the Invasion of Poland of 1939 in this World War II theatre but this article concentrates on the much larger conflict which was fought from June 1941 to May 1945", I added that Poland joined the Soviet side in January 1945.


 * ???? Polish LWP forces fought the Germans beginning in 1943. DMorpheus 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Polish Armed Forces in the East were formed as early as in 1941, see related article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * However, the Anders army didn't fight on the Eastern Front. With respect, Ko Soi IX 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct, but the LWP forces did fight, beginning in 1943. By 1945 they amounted to at least a full field Army. DMorpheus 23:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is so. I just wanted to point out a difference between "formed" and "joined the fight". With respect, Ko Soi IX 03:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

North-Eastern Front in late 1944
What were the offensives/battles in the northern (Polish) region between Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive which ended in July 1944, and Vistula-Oder Offensive that begun in January 1945? I cannot find any information on operations conducted during that period, where Soviets obviously crossed few hundred kilometers from eastern to central Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lomza-Ruzhan Offensive Operation (Ломжа-Ружанская наступательная операция)(30.8-2.11.44 г.), 2nd Belorussian Front (3rd and 49th armies, from 21.9 - 48th army, 4th airforce army). Also, there was something dubbed as Combat actions to widen the beachhead (? - what is the english analogue of плацдарм) on river Visla in the area of Sandomir. (Боевые действия по расширению плацдарма на р. Висла в р-не Сандомира) which was conducted by the 1st Ukrainian Front (30.8-2.11.44 г.) (5th guards army, 13th army, 4th tank army, 2nd airforce army), although that is not exactly "northern Polish region". With respect, Ko Soi IX 21:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tnx. Perhaps you could create stubs on those you know; I wrote an article recently on Lublin-Brest Operation. This work has a good list of offensives, and we are missing many, see p.20-21, p.30, p.39-40, p.49-50, p.61-62, p.71-72, p.80-81, p.89 and p.98 (that's for the period of entire war). I have copied the list below.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Great Patriotic War
Why is there a separate article Great Patriotic War but both articles have common Talk?

Great Patriotic War is a POV notion and shouldn't be used in neutral articles. The SU took part in WWII since September 1939 as a Nazi ally and became the good guy only in June 1941.Xx236 09:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Signing a non-aggression pact is not the same as being an ally, the SU also signed one with Japan and this does not mean that they were allies either, a non-aggression pact is a pact where both sides agree not to attack each other during X amount of time. Monthkeep123 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dividing Europe is being an ally. If you family was happy to not be a victim of the division, try to understand the victims.Xx236 07:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Victims have nothing to do with being or not being an ally. If the USSR was an ally of Third Reich, why didn't Great Britain and France declare war on it? Why didn't the USSR declare war or Great Britain and France? With respect, Ko Soi IX 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Germany and Soviet Union divided continental Europe 1939-1941. They signed many agreements regulating their cooperation, eg. Gestapo-NKVD, see [German AB Action operation in Poland] "According to many historians, including Norman Davies, the action against Polish leaders was coordinated with the authorities of the Soviet Union, who at the same time prepared the mass murder of 22 000 Polish military officers at Katyń and other places". Germany obtained a number of German Communists as a friendly gift. Wehrmacht and Red Army manifested their cooperation, eg. in Brest.

Winter War discusses Franco-British plans for a Scandinavian theatre.

Poland and its allies pretended, that SU was neutral. The same US and UK pretended later they believed that Katyn was a German crime. It was politics. Xx236 07:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By your definition, Britian and France were also "allies" of Nazi Germany. Didn't they agree to divide a piece of Europe amongst themselves without consultation with the victims? See Munich, 1938. Let's get serious. DMorpheus 16:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Let's go serious." I don't like your way of discussing - thank you.Xx236 08:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget that Poland took part of Czechoslovakia alongside Hitler. So, it means Poland was ally of the Reich? 195.98.64.69 03:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Combatants
Didn't the Romanian Army join the Soviet side in 1944?

Bulgaria says "In 1944, Bulgaria's forces were turned against its former German ally (a 450,000 strong army in 1944, reduced to 130,000 in 1945). More than 30,000 Bulgarian soldiers and officers were killed in the war." So Bulgaria should be listed.

Xx236 09:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the Soviet citizens would side with the Germans
How much is some? 5, 50? What about many SS units not belonging to the Russian Liberation Army? Xx236 09:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of 100.000s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.91.194 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

POV thingie
Hiding behind the excuse that russians liberated us (Romania n eastern europe) from nazis (when they replaced that criminal ideology with another criminal one) they bend history to reflect the fact that Poland, and Bessarabia + Bukowina belonged to them in the phrase "Russian lands of Poland, Ukraine, Besarabia and North Bukovina were RETURNED to USSR" or something like that.

North Bukovina was never part of USSR prior to its WWII anexation, while Bessarabia was only part of USSR 130 years or so, after being part of Moldova since early medieval times, and allways maintaining Romanian majority despite the colonizations done by the soviets. Even suggesting that Russia has a right to these lands in Eastern Europe proves love for communism (so love for killing for fun cuz that's what communism did) and love for totalitarianism and abolition of rights.

Yes, russians liberated Eastern Europe, but after doing so anexed all the countries in the Eastern block (don't bullsh*t me that "formally" they were never annexed), so all the good they did by killing the fascist mentality was overshadowed by their own greed and lust for lands that didn't belong to them.

We, in the eastern europe, were caught between 2 criminal minds, 2 criminal ideologies, no way out. Either way would have brought chaos and mayhem to our countries. IT's time to cut the sh*t from history!

Please, someone, remove the phrase i quoted, from the text.


 * Well, Bessarabia was part of Russian Empire far longer than it was part of Romania. When the Empire collapsed, Romania helped herself to some imperial territory. Russia (and than the USSR) never accepted this territorial change; at the first possible opportunity, Romania was forced to return Bessarabia to Russia. Bessarabia was populated by many different groups; by 1940 the policies of romanization made non-romanian population resent everything romanian. Soviet soldiers were greeted as liberators - although, that did not last. So yes, at that time Soviet rights for Besarabia were greater than those of the Romanians. North Bukovina was part of the medieval Russian state. Communism has nothing to do with killing for fun; if you know nothing of this matter, why show it to everyone? And, btw, the Eastern block countries, while being heavily influenced by Moskow, were not annexed, no matter how much some of those who licked our boots before like to feel like victims now.Ko Soi IX 07:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. And speaking of greed and lust for lands that did not belong to them - what were Romanians doing in Odessa? Trayasku Romania Mare!Ko Soi IX 07:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

clandestine reconnaissance flights
The Soviets were aware of the flights and there were orders to not shoot. Is the word "clandestine" appropriate here?Xx236 14:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Combatant again
I'm curious what happened to Poland so that it disappeared from the combatants list. --Brand спойт 23:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tuva and Mongolia?
Did they contribute anything to the Eastern Front? Not that I know of, so why are they included anyway? Mongolia only participated in August Storm operation of 1945 against Japan.
 * Mongolia contributed immense quantities of such supplies as wool for coats, horses, cattle. Their economic assistance was far more important than their military conribution to August Storm. With respect, Ko Soi IX 23:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

List of major operations
Using the data I noted above, here is the list of major operations. Please add ilinks, and red links need to be redirected or stubbed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * summer-fall campaign of 1941


 * The Border Battles (June-July 1941)
 * The German Advance on Leningrad (July-September 1941)
 * The Battle of Smolensk (July-August 1941)
 * The Uman’ and Kiev Encirclements (August-September 1941)
 * German Operation Typhoon and the Viaz’ma and Briansk Encirclements (30 September-5 November 1941)
 * The German Advance on Moscow (7 November-4 December 1941)
 * The German Tikhvin Offensive (16 October-18 November 1941)
 * The German Advance on Khar’kov, the Crimea, and Rostov (18 October-16 November 1941)
 * The Soviet Rostov Counterstroke (17 November-2 December 1941)
 * The Soviet Rasenai, Grodno, and Dubno Counterstrokes (June 1941)
 * The Soviet Soltsy, Lepel’, Bobruisk, and Kiev Counterstrokes (July 1941)
 * The Soviet Staraia Russa, Smolensk, and Kiev Counterstrokes (August 1941)
 * The Soviet Smolensk, El’nia, and Roslavl’ Offensive (September 1941)
 * The Soviet Kalinin Counterstroke (October 1941)


 * winter campaign of 1941-42


 * The Soviet Moscow Counteroffensive (5 December 1941-7 January 1942)
 * The Soviet Moscow Offensive (The Battle for Moscow) (8 January-20 April 1942)
 * The Soviet Tikhvin Offensive (10 November-30 December 1941)
 * The Soviet Demiansk Offensive (7 January-25 February 1942)
 * The Soviet Toropets-Kholm Offensive (9 January-6 February 1942)
 * The Soviet Barvenkovo-Lozovaia Offensive (18-31 January 1942)
 * The Soviet Kerch-Feodosiia Offensive (25 December 1941-2 January 1942)
 * The Soviet Liuban’ (Leningrad-Novgorod) Offensive (7 January-30 April 1942)
 * The Soviet Demiansk Offensive (1 March-30 April 1942)
 * The Soviet Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive (15 February-1 March 1942)
 * The Soviet Orel-Bolkhov Offensive (7 January-18 February 1942)
 * The Soviet Bolkhov Offensive (24 March-3 April 1942)
 * The Soviet Oboian’-Kursk Offensive (3-26 January 1942)
 * The Soviet Crimean Offensive (27 February-15 April 1942)


 * summer-fall campaign of 1942


 * The Soviet Khar’kov Offensive (12-29 May 1942)
 * The Soviet Crimean Debacle (8-19 May 1942)
 * German Operation Blau: The Advance to Stalingrad and the Caucasus (28 June-3 September 1942)
 * The Soviet Siniavino Offensive (19 August-10 October 1942)
 * The Battle of Stalingrad (3 September-18 November 1942)
 * The Soviet Donbas Defense (7-24 July 1942)
 * The Destruction of 2nd Shock Army at Miasnyi Bor (13 May-10 July 1942)
 * The Destruction of 2nd Shock Army at Siniavino (19 August-20 October 1942)
 * The Soviet Demiansk Offensives (July, August, September 1942)
 * The Soviet Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive (30 July- 23 August 1942)
 * The Soviet Zhizdra-Bolkhov Offensives (5-14 July, 23-29 August 1942)
 * The Soviet Voronezh Offensives (4-24 July, 12-15 August, 15-28 September 1942)


 * winter campaign of 1942-43

February 1943)
 * The Soviet Stalingrad Offensive, Operation Uranus (19 November-1942-2
 * Soviet Operation Little Saturn (16-30 December 1942)
 * The Krasnodar-Novorossiisk Offensive (11 January-24 May 1943)
 * The Soviet Kotel’nikovskii Defense and Offensive (12-30 December 1942)
 * The Soviet Siniavino Offensive, Operation “Spark” (12-30 January 1943)
 * The Soviet Ostrogozhsk-Rossosh’ Offensive (13-27 January 1943)
 * The Soviet Voronezh-Kastornoe Offensive (24 January-5 February 1943)
 * The Soviet Donbas Offensive (1-20 February 1943)
 * The Soviet Khar’kov Offensive (2-26 February 1943)
 * The Soviet Rostov Offensive (1 January-18 February 1943)
 * Manstein’s Donbas and Khar’kov Counterstokes (20 February-23 March 1943)
 * The Demiansk Offensive (15 February-1 March 1943)
 * The Rzhev-Viaz’ma Offensive (2 March-1 April 1943)
 * Soviet Operation Mars: The Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive (25 November-20 December 1942)
 * The Soviet Orel, Briansk, and Smolensk Offensives (5 February-28 March 1943)
 * Soviet Operation Polar Star (15 February-19 March 1943)


 * summer-fall campaign of 1943


 * German Operation Citadel and the Defensive Battle of Kursk (5-23 July 1943)
 * The Soviet Orel Offensive (Operation Kutuzov) (12 July-18 August 1943)
 * The Soviet Belgorod-Khar’kov Offensive (Operation Rumiantsev) (3-23 August 1943)
 * The Soviet Smolensk Offensive (Operation Suvorov) (7 August-2 October 1943)
 * The Soviet Briansk Offensive (1 September-3 October 1943)
 * The Soviet Chernigov-Poltava Offensive (The Red Army Advance to the Dnepr River) (26 August-30 September 1943)
 * The Soviet Donbas Offensive (13 August-22 September)
 * The Soviet Melitopol’ Offensive (26 September-5 November 1943)
 * The Soviet Novorossiisk-Taman’ Offensive (10 September-9 October 1943)
 * The Soviet Nevel’-Gorodok Offensive (6 October-31 December 1943)
 * The Soviet Gomel-Rechitsa Offensive (10-30 November 1943)
 * The Soviet Kiev Offensive (3-13 November 1943)
 * The Soviet Lower Dnepr Offensive (26 September-20 December 1943)
 * Manstein’s Kiev Counterstrokes (13 November-22 December 1943)
 * The Soviet Zhitomir-Berdichev Offensive (24 December 1943-14 January 1944)
 * The Soviet Taman’ Offensive (4 April-10 May, 26 May-2 August 1943)
 * The Soviet Donbas Offensive (Izium-Barvenkovo and the Mius River )(17 July-2 August 1943)
 * The Soviet Siniavino Offensive (15-18 September 1943)
 * The Soviet Belorussian Offensive (Vitebsk, Orsha, Gomel, and Bobruisk) (3 October-31 December 1943)
 * The Soviet Kiev Offensive (1-24 October 1943)
 * The Soviet Krivoi-Rog and Nikopol’ Offensives (14 November-31 December 1943)


 * winter campaign of 1943-44


 * The Soviet Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive (14 January-1 March 1944)
 * The Soviet Zhitomir-Berdichev Offensive (24 December 1943-14 January 1944)
 * The Soviet Kirovograd Offensive (5-16 January 1944)
 * The Soviet Korsun’-Shevchenkovskii Offensive (Cherkassy) (24 January-17 February 1944)
 * The Soviet Rovno-Lutsk Offensive (27 January-11 February 1944)
 * The Soviet Vitebsk Offensive (3 February-13 March 1944)
 * The Soviet Rogachev-Zhlobin Offensive (21-26 February 1944)
 * The Soviet Proskurov-Chernovtsy Offensive (Kamenets-Podolsk) (4 March-17 April 1944)
 * The Soviet Uman’-Botoshany Offensive (5 March-17 April 1944)
 * The Soviet Chernogovatoe-Snegirevka Offensive (6-18 March 1944)
 * The Soviet Odessa Offensive (26 March-14 April 1944)
 * The Soviet Crimean Offensive (8 April-12 May 1944)
 * The Soviet Narva Offensives (15-28 February, 1-4, 18-24 March 1944)
 * The Soviet Pskov, Ostrov Offensive, The Struggle for the Panther Line (9 March-15 April 1944)
 * The Soviet Belorussian Offensive (Vitebsk, Bogushevsk, Rogachev, Shlobin) (1 January-15 March 1944)
 * The Soviet Iassy-Kishinev Offensive (Targul-Frumos) (2-7 May 1944)


 * summer-fall campaign of 1944


 * The Soviet Karelian Offensive (10-20 June 1944)
 * The Soviet Belorussian Offensive (Operation Bagration) (23 June-29 August 1944)
 * The Soviet Lublin-Brest Offensive (18 July-2 August 1944)
 * The Soviet L’vov-Sandomierz Offensive (13 July-29 August 1944)
 * The Soviet Iassy-Kishinev Offensive (20 August-25 September 1944)
 * The Soviet Baltic Offensive (14 September-20 October 1944)
 * The Soviet Memel’ Offensive (5-22 October 1944)
 * The Soviet Petsamo-Kirkeness Offensive (7-29 October 1944)
 * The Soviet Debrecen Offensive (6-28 October 1944)
 * The Soviet Belgrade Offensive (28 September-20 October 1944)
 * The Soviet Budapest Offensive (29 October 1944-13 February 1945)
 * The Soviet East Prussian Offensive (the Goldap-Gumbinnen operation)(16- 30 October 1944)
 * The Soviet East Carpathian Offensive (8 September-28 October 1944)


 * winter campaign of 1945


 * The Soviet Vistula-Oder Offensive (12 January-3 February 1945)
 * The Soviet East Prussian Offensive (13 January-25 April 1945)
 * The Soviet Lower Silesian Offensive (8-24 February 1945)
 * The Soviet East Pomeranian Offensive (10 February-4 April 1945)
 * The Soviet Upper Silesian Offensive (15-31 March 1945)
 * The Morava-Ostravka Offensives (10 March-5 May 1945)
 * The Banska-Bystrica Offensive (10-30 March 1945)
 * The German Balaton Offensive (6-15 March 1945)
 * The Soviet Vienna Offensive (16 March-15 April 1945)
 * The Bratislava-Brno Offensive (25 March-5 May 1945)
 * The Soviet Berlin Offensive (February 1945)
 * The Soviet West Carpathian Offensive (10 March-5 May 1945)


 * spring campaign of 1945:


 * The Siege of Konigsberg and adjacent pockets (13 March-9 April 1945)
 * The Battle for Berlin (16 April-8 May 1945)
 * The Prague Offensive (6-11 May 1945)
 * The Battle for Courland (16 February-8 May 1945)

I need more information about lend lease in eastern front
Sorry for my bad English I see in wikipedia lend lease send about 10% of soviet productivity in some kind of weapon such Air crafts and machine guns.Major part of trucks and many of boots and food .But the point is how many of them send in 1941 and 1942 which I think end of 1942 where turning point of the war. And in 1941 and 1942 time U-boats have success in stop ally supply.

And how German fail in political in many country such Poland and Ukrain ?First Ukrain support German but after German capture them for a while .Then their peoples change side .And patisans from both country make German short in supply in battle of Moskow and Stalingrad.And German act in Ukrain as same as other country in their empire?If not why?

Deceptive figures
The "Summary of Axis and Soviet Tank and Self-propelled Gun production during the war" is grossly deceptive as it compares total German AFV-production, including armoured cars and half-tracks, with the Soviet production of tanks only. --MWAK 06:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC) ~


 * You are wrong in everything you have said


 * First the numbers of Soviet are ALWAYS tanks and self propelled guns. The German numbers are first of tanks and THEN of tanks and self propelled guns it does not, I say again it does not, include “armoured cars and half-tracks” If you want to see the numbers for yourself then get the book which is linked as a source it even has page numbers
 * The numbers are deceptive as they do not list captured vehicles by the Germans, the Germans did capture around 1000 t-34 and several thousands t-26 tanks and other afv those numbers are not listed so in that the numbers are deceptive
 * And if I may be so bold to ask what is your scientific data that proves what you have just said, the numbers here are linked by real data where does your data come from? Paperdays 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the banned user Deng here again with another sockpuppet. DMorpheus 19:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Change article name?
What are peoples opinions on renaming this article to Soviet-German War? I have a few problems with calling it the "Eastern Front".


 * The name is from a German point of view, for the Soviets (who also briefly fought the Japanese), this could very easily be their "Western Front".
 * There is potential confusion for this to include everything in the Eastern European Theatre, including the initial invasion of Poland
 * The name would not require a disambiguation clause after it
 * It doesn't fit in with most of the other names, which are pretty descriptive about where they are taking place from the name alone

Oberiko 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, unfortunately, the popular usage is indeed "Eastern Front". DMorpheus 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The separation between Eastern Front (World War II) and Great Patriotic War articles
I would like to say that the current separation between the Eastern Front (World War II) and Great Patriotic War articles here in Wikipedia is an absolute nonsense, since boh terms describes the same event.

To create a tiny separate article called "Great Patriotic War" just to separate the term from the mainstream Historiography is just a mere pro-neo-Soviet POV, in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.232.230.158 (talk • contribs).


 * O unsigned anonymous editor, the article "Great Patriotic War" is clearly about the TERM rather than the events described. 3 of 4 paragraphs actually begin with "the term". Eleland 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Combatants
The term "Eastern Front", does that include Czechoslovakia and the Balkans and Finland as well? If yes, shouldn't the Yugoslav Partisans and Czechoslovakia and Romania/Bulgaria/Finland after 1944 be added to the Allied combatants? 96T 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I once had such a thought. But there were rather a sparsed guerillas, basically with no banner, this should go as a notice to combatants. --Brand спойт 20:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this should be stated more clearly than is now the case. The current language (edit of 27 sep) is ambiguous. The small Czech units were fighting under their own flag, for example, and were not strictly a part of the Red Army. Likewise with the Bulgarians. The current language could be misinterpreted to mean that there were foreign units within the Red Army, sort of similar to the foreign units of the Waffen-SS. DMorpheus 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The name "Fodor von Bock" is missing from the roster of Combatants. He was the commander of Army Group Center for the Axis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.94.211 (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Commander in Chief of Bulgarian Navy?
Does anyone know who the Commander in Chief of Bulgarian Navy was between 1941-1944? Regards, --Kurt Leyman 21:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Current background
Do we really need such a long description of preceding events, which are mainly related rather to WWII in general? --Brand спойт 16:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Soviet Victory?
It may have already been asked before, but why does the result read "Soviet victory", why not "Allied victory"? Soviet Union did not prosecute the war alone and the conflict is usually viewed within the framework of World War 2, so why not Allied victory then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.121.113 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say because this is the Eastern Front article, not the WW2 article. And within the eastern front, Soviet forces supplied pretty much all the combat power. Certainly there were allied units such as the Poles especially, but all other forces (Czechs, Bulgarians, French Normandie squadron, etc) were quite small. DMorpheus 12:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the situation in the Axis was about the same (German supremacy), however if you look at Operation Barbarossa article - it reads "Axis operational victory" rather than "German operational victory". Perhaps, for consistency, this article should read the same? 155.246.121.195 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Or the Barbarossa article changed. ;) Seriously, one problem in this case is that the term "Allied" is not consistently used. Sometimes it means "those powers that fought the axis" but more often the common usage seems to be "the western Allies - USA, UK etc, but not the USSR". Maybe this is a good thing to get guidance on from a task force. DMorpheus 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The situation with the Axis on the Eastern Front was different, despite the obvious German supremacy. The irrecoverable losses of Soviet allies were at 0.66% of the total allied losses there, while the irrecoverable losses of German european allies were at 17% of the total axis losses on the Eastern front. Finland alone probably provided more troops for the axis than all of the Soviet allies that fought on the Eastern front. With respect, Ko Soi IX 21:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree there were a number of satellite fascist nations that cooperated with but were not quite authors of some of the Nazis' more extremist policies, who were nonetheless willing combatants on a large-scale. These nations voluntarily matched their allies by committing a large amount of fighting men, material, and treasure to the war.  To say the Nazis were the Soviet's opponents on the Eastern Front ignores the role of the Italians, Hungarians, Finns, and others. 68.49.138.170 (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslavia
Since the combatant list already includes such participants as Polish Secret State and Croatia, I find it reasonable to also include Yugoslav People's Liberation Army in the combatant list, since it was a large-size formidable fighting force, and it was clearly allied to the Soviets, especially in 1944-1945 when the two sides conducted joint operations against German and Croatian forces. Kami888 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

started article on the extermination of the Soviet POWs
Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany - please expand, it's millions of deaths. --HanzoHattori 16:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)