Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive 8

Images in general
I looked at the images for this article and I can say I found a lot of issues. I found two images tagged with PD-Russia-2008 and they do not qualify for that template. They were made during the war and pretty much the only things that are PD in Russia by age are works done before the war. I found a lot of images tagged with PD-Ukraine even though the battles did not take place in the Ukraine or the photographer is not mentioned as Ukrainian. I found one image tagged as a US work even though it was a German photograph of the Germans shooting Russian partisans. According to http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm if the image was PD in 1996 in German, it will be PD here. However, German has a 70 year copyright law and it won't be the 70th anniversary of the war ending until 2015. I think this image could be replaced from one from the Bundesarchiv, but that is something that needs to be searched. Some images I just speedied, others I sent to DR at the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, about the execution picture I talked about, I found a free replaced at File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-212-0221-07, Russland-Nord, Erschießung von Partisanen.jpg from the Bundesarchiv. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "even though the battles did not take place in the Ukraine or the photographer is not mentioned as Ukrainian" Most Bundesarchiv photos were made outside of Germany. With regards to photegraphers' nationality, Soviet photographers were Soviet citizens (btw, Yevgeny Khaldei was born on territory of present days Ukraine). Therefore, I don't see any problems with photos that are in PD in Ukraine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The images I deleted did not mention a photographer name, so it would be impossible to check. I did keep the Odessa picture in the article because Odessa is a city in the Ukraine. The rule of thumb is that if the specific republic is not mentioned for the location of the photo or the photographer, always use the Russian law to determine. I know there are some folks on here that are confused about the Bundesarchiv photos, but most of the time, those are German made and we have some idea of who did it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Montage
Upon meditation I realized that no single photo can serve as a infobox image in the article that tells about whole Eastern front. Although the Khaldei's photo is the best single image we can imagine, the Eatsern Front cannot be reduced only to the overwhelming Soviet success in 1944-45. Eastern front included also extremely fast and successful advance of the Axis troops in 1941-42, bloody battles in the middle of the war, immense civil losses, devastated cities, the Holocaust, death of millions of POWs, brutal anti-partisan warfare, and many similar things. I propose to think about a collage of the same style as that in the World War II article. It would be more informative than a single photo, and it may partially resolve a non-free image issue (although the Khaldei's photo, in its lower resolution version must be in the main article). I'll try to make a collage in reasonable time and I propose to think about possible images for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A collage of free images would be a brilliant illustration for the infobox. J Milburn (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I know that only free images can be used in a collage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you already removed the image. However, the collage has not been created yet, so no free equivalent exists so far. NFCC rules do not say that hypothetical existence of free equivalent precludes non-free media from an article. I encourage you to revert your last edit and to wait until a collage is created. In addition, a threat to block me after a consensus has been achieved (although such a threat didn't come from you directly, I have a strong reason to suspect that some canvassing took place in that case) is simply shameful. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Faithfully yours, --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not deny that I discussed this with the other user a few days ago- I was discussing the issue generally on IRC and he protected the page. I did not directly ask him to intervene, and I have had no contact with him since then. If you don't believe me, tough luck, I don't care. As for your other point- the fact a replacement could exist certainly does mean non-free content cannot be used. Non-free media is not used when it is replaceable, not replaced, meaning that the NFCC certainly do "say that hypothetical existence of free equivalent precludes non-free media from an article". This is exactly the same as the way we do not allow non-free images in the infoboxes of living people, as the image could be replaced. Once again, you're demonstrating your horrendous knowledge of the basics of our NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For records, I assume people should be believed unless the opposite has been demonstrated. During our dispute you demonstrated some non-politeness, unwillingness to take others' arguments seriously, however, I have no reasons to think you lied.
 * However, it is worth noting that I myself neither discussed nor took any other attempt to involve any concrete editor (directly or indirectly) into the discussion of the dispute's subject (although I concede I asked for some general comment on my own behaviour during this dispute), because I believed that any kind of canvassing is not acceptable in a fair dispute.
 * With regards to the section's subject, I believe there is no need to continue the discussion. We both agreed that a collage may theoretically be an adequate replacement, so, if such a proposal will be supported by others, I'll prepare it soon. However, some moral issues remains. You perfectly knew that I was the person who proposed this solution, you perfectly knew that I am working on that. Therefore, after noticing a false accusation in edit warring on my talk page you had to interfere to explain a real state of things. You abstained from that and thereby demonstrated a lack of nobility. That is sad.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether you were working on the collage, you continued to edit war over the image- which even you now admitted was against NFCC#1 by claiming that a collage was a suitable replacement (even if you did not realise the implication of your claim). J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that some edit warring really takes places, although I have another opinion of who is to blame. I see no reason in further discussion so far. I prepared a collage and I wait for reasonable comments on it. If the comments will be positive, the issue is resolved. If criticism will be constructive, I'll try to fix the collage accordingly. If someone will prepare a better collage, I'll be happy. If all these collages will be rejected, I'll initiate a standard procedure to resolve a dispute over the Khaldei's photo and the problem will be resolved with or without your participation. Full stop.
 * It'd be great if the problem could be solved without my participation, but your carelessly sourced and mysteriously Creative Commons montage shows once again that you have little knowledge of, or respect for, our image policies. A montage is the way to go, but the current suggestion really isn't happening. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Iteration #1
Below is a first (rough) version of the infobox collage. It includes Ju-87 dive bombers in Russian sky, Tigers during the Battle of Kursk, Stalingrad liberated by the Soviets, Il-2 Shturmoviks in Berlin's sky, Keitel signing German instrument of surrender and murder of Soviet Jews by a German solder in Ukraine.



The images were taken from Commons. Does anyone see any problems with the collage or images used for it? Any suggestions on its improvement are warmly welcome.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all you can't claim copyright to this montage like you have licensed it on wikipedia. For second the images provided by the Bundesarchiv, the license has share alike conditions. Pleas read it . And finally Commons needs to really look into for example at least one of the images used in the montage Russland, Kampf um Stalingrad, Siegesflagge.jpg the author is Georgii Zelma who died in 1984- meaning the copyright is going to expire in year 2054. Why is it still in Commons? -I have no idea.--Termer (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nominated File:Berlin offensive.jpg for deletion. Could we possibly have this one removed from the collage, unless we get some more concrete licensing info? J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we replace the image in question with this photo? Soviet Offensive Moscow December 1941.jpg Is this a good alternative?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  02:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the image of the Shturmoviks with the image that I posted above. I think that now it's fit to go on the main page. Any comments?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I modified the collage further to add more spectacular picture of the Tiger, more recognizable image of the Soviet T-34, more informative photo of Stalingrad (Soviet soldiers attack Stalingrad ruins), and, in addition, I re-arranged the images to maintain the WWII collage's style. If noone objects, we probably can introduce the picture into the infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are all of the images in the Pubilc Domain, or do they have the correct PD tags? If so then I'm all for puting this into the infobox.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  14:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some images are in PD, other are under Germany Share Alike 3.0 license (that in our case seems to be the same). All images are from Commons. I see no problem with these images, however, if someone sees, I encourage him/her to express his/her objections here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

casualties
there are at least 1,5 million missing ( the conscripts ) fix please Blablaaa (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not missing. They are among civilian casualties. See (Soviet Deaths in the Great Patriotic War: A Note. Author(s): Michael Ellman and S. Maksudov. Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 4, Soviet and East European History (1994), pp. 671-680)--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

they should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Italian engagement in late years
Hi to all. List the RSI between the belligerents is basically an error. As largely known, ARMIR was withdrawn from Russia during the first months of 1943 (and Russian defeat was one of the primary problems which led to Mussolini's fall on July 25). Despite its name, RSI's Republican National Army was not a real army (Germans never allowed a re-formation of an Italian Army, not to risk another side change as on September 8), but only an anti-resistence force to be used in Northern Italy. According to historian Arrigo Petacco, all Italian troops remained in all Europe on September 8 were disarmed and, in same cases, massacred by German troops (Captain Corelli's Mandolin can give quite a good image of those events). Under Himmler's proclamation of September 22, Italian soldiers in German military prisons could be freed if they accepted to join the new-formed ENR in Italy. According to Petacco again, ENR was not allowed to fight outside Northern Italy (and nor there, in Germany-bordering provinces). In same cases, few Italian soldiers were allowed to fight outside Italy, but as part of Wehrmacht, not of ENR. These troops were not under RSI control (which was quite theorical even in Italy), and RSI flag was never seen outside (Northern) Italy.--80.117.33.71 (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence for conflict as "Germanic vs Slavic"?
It says in the ideology section, that the Axis considered this a war against "the inferior Slavic race". There is no reference for this claim being the motivation however. Slovakia and Croatia, both Slavic nations, fought in this conflict on the German side against the Bolsheviks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Industrial output
Is the text that accompanies the statistics in that particular section of the article lifted from the same source? In any case, the text is devoid of references. Broadbandmink (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC) SAD:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.252.71 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Finland
Why is Finland mentioned in prologue, list of forces and commanders and in the list of casualties when there is hardly any mention of Winter War, Continuation War or War of Lappland? It is disputable whether Finland was a Axis power or not and were those wars part of Eastern front or separate occasions, but either way IMHO there is a conflict between charts and the article itself. Either Finland should be removed completely from this article or Winter War etc. should be added, 212.149.213.242 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "It is disputable whether Finland was a Axis power or not" It is not disputable. Finland was not an Axis power. However, Finland was a Germany's co-belligerent, it did invade the USSR few days after Barbarossa started and it did participate in hostilities in Karelia and Lapland.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Female Soviet War Pilots on Polikarkow Po-2 bombers
I am not sure whether this is significant enough for the article, but it could be interesting. In 1942 the Soviet Union became the first nation to allow women to pilot war planes. They were highly successful, too, especially the 588th night bomber regiment. The Germans called them "Night Witches", the Russians called them "Stalin's Falks". They had 30 wooden Polikarkow Po-2 bombers, flew 23.672 missions, dropped more than 100,000 bombs. Epsiloner (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Stalin Falks" was the nickname of VVS as a whole.--El gato verde (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

They flew until November 1945. 23 night witches got the title "Hero of the Soviet Union". Here is a SPIEGEL story on them, but unfortunately it is in German: http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/5522/stalins_himmelstuermerinnen.html Epsiloner (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Polish date of entry
The date for the "Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland" entry into the war is given at 1943, evidently stated by the source listed with it. However, the RTRP article states that the RTRP was itself created on the night of 31 December 1944 (Davies, Norman, 1982 and several reprints. God's Playground. 2 vols. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. ISBN 0-231-05353-3 and ISBN 0-231-05351-7). It's impossible for the date of entry to be earlier than it's actual creation date. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Companion to World War II states on page 701 that the Union of Polish Patriots was established in March 1943 as a puppet government in waiting and started raising a Polish Army in the Soviet Union shortly afterwards. Page 100 states that the first 'Polish' unit, the Kościuszko Division, first saw combat in October 1943. As such, 1943 appears to be the appropriate date for the entrance of a nominally independent Polish force into the war. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it state that the Kościuszko Division was directly subordinated to "Union of Polish Patriots" command? Even if it was, this would seem exactly similar to the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia, and the Ukrainian National Committee, which raised armies and saw combat. It should not be included while others are excluded. I might add that I'm not at all opposed to the Union of Polish Patriots be listed, as long as all combatants are given fair treatment. Lt.Specht (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, on page 100 it states that the division was "formally under the direction of the Union of Polish Patriots" and was formed without consulting the Polish Government in London. Given that the Union of Polish Patriots was a de-facto Government in exile at the time which went on to form the post-war Government, it seems reasonable to treat 1943 as the entry year. I don't see any reason to apply a one size fits all model to the other nominally independent puppet governments through - these didn't ever form government. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article only deals with the time frame on the Eastern Front though, future events that happened seems irrelevant, who is to say that the aforementioned Committee's would not of gone on to become actual sovereign governments as the Germans had promised and decreed? And I'm not sure if the Union of Polish Patriots went on to form the post war government. There were a dozen or so Polish provisional type entities, I believe the Provisional Government of National Unity went on to form the post war government, though the Union of Polish Patriots could of been a predecessor to it. Anyway, individual sources on entities such as the Patriots and the Committees should be followed in relation to the timeline of the article. The sources for the Patriots and the Committees are virtually the same it seem. It seems irrelevant to judge them by looking at future events past the conflict. Lt.Specht (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted you. Given that the Soviet Union did win the war and their puppet Polish Government in exile did evolve into the actual Polish government (which, as you note actually happened during the war), there seems to be no need to exclude them on the grounds of what may or may not have happened in the hypothetical situation in which Germany won the war as you appear to be suggesting. Moreover, what I've provided on Poland is referenced to a highly reliable source. I'd be interested in other editors views on this matter though. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Poland should be linked to the Union of Polish Patriots, if that's what the source says. And I would be interested in your opinions on other matters related to this. Lt.Specht (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Volunteers in Wehrmacht were not a separate belligerents
By analogy with the Blue division, it is incorrect to list Russian and Ukrainian volunteers in Wehrmacht (or WaffenSS) as separate belligerents. Both Russian and Ukrainian divisions were either ordinary Wehrmacht (600th German Infantry Division, Russian) or WaffenSS (14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian))divisions, their personnel took a personal oath to Hitler, and they were directly subordinated to the German military command. Neither Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia, nor Ukrainian National Committee had real authority over German military units composed from Russian or Ukrainian nationals. Therefore, they cannot be listed as an independent belligerent on the Axis side. However, at least one case has been described when so-called Russian liberation army did act as a separate belligerent. I mean the participation of the Vlassov's army in Prague offensive ... on the Allied side. The source states:
 * "World War II mythology heralds the imposing 6'5" Vlasov as the pro-German warrior chief of the Russian Liberation Army. In reality he spent all but the last months of the war as persuader-in-chief of an army which existed only on paper."
 * "The organization and training of Russian forces actually under Vlasov's authority did not begin until November 1944, and only one division ever became operational. Pieced together from odd Russian battalions, recent POW recruits, and the remnants of Kaminskii's guerrillas, the 15,000-man formation fought briefly and ineffectively along the Oder River in mid-April 1945, then moved south against German orders. In a bizarre finale too incredible for fiction, 18,000 anti-Soviet ex-Red Army soldiers cast off their German connections and helped Czech partisans liberate Prague. By 5:30p.m. on 6 May, Vlasov's 1st Division had disarmed 10,000 Germans at a cost of 300 casualties." (Andrei Vlasov: Red Army General in Hitler's Service. Author(s): Mark Elliott Source: Military Affairs, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Apr., 1982), pp. 84-87)

In other words, the military contribution of the Vlassov's army was greater than that of such an "Allied power" as Equador of Honduras (I mean, the contribution on the Allied side). Based on that, if someone wants to list the so-called Vlassov's army as a separate belligerent, it should be listed as the Allied, not the Axis troops (although I personally do not believe it is necessary). --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're joking. It's a bad joke. Name "Vlasovtsy" is synonymously to "traitors" in Russian language or "quislings" in European ones. Vlasovtsy were in rear services. Vlasov army fought with Red Army in 09/02/1945, in 13/04/1945.--El gato verde (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fighting against Axis doesn't make automatically someone member of Allies. Fighting against Allies doesn't make automatically someone member of Axis.--El gato verde (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Mr. Siebert on this one, it would be complete nonsense to list Russian/Ukranian volunteers in the Wehrmacht as another faction alongside Germany, Finland, Hungary, etc. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "I think you're joking. It's a bad joke." I am not joking, I just quote the sources. In actuality, "vlasovtsy" became an umbrella term that described all Soviet/Russian traitors who served in German army. That was mostly a result of German propaganda, because in actuality Vlassov had no authority over majority of "Russian" units in German army. The fact is that the only military unit that can be considered a Vlasov's army was just one Wehrmacht division, and the contribution of this division on the German side was minimal. Ironically, the contribution of the same division in anti-German hostilities was more notable, so if someone wants to list these troops as a separate belligerent they should be listed as Allied co-belligerent. Note, however, that I did not propose to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've said nothing about source. I've said about "if someone wants to list the so-called Vlassov's army as a separate belligerent, it should be listed as the Allied, not the Axis troops". Participation of Vlasov in Prague rebellion doesn't prove anything but their natures of traitors: traitors always lick asses to strongest.--El gato verde (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "That was mostly a result of German propaganda". No, it was Soviet propaganda.--El gato verde (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I didn't propose to include ROA into the infobox, the dispute is of academic value only. However, let me reiterate my point: if someone wants to include ROA it should be among the Allied co-belligerents because (i) their contribution in Prague was more prominent, and (ii) they acted independently, not as a Wehrmacht division. With regards to your "traitors always lick asses", let's discuss facts, not motives.
 * Most of war ROA acted as division in Wehrmacht. Is it fact?--El gato verde (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With regards to Soviet propaganda, I am not sure if I get your point. Anyway, the image if Vlasov as a leader of some big "Rissian Liberation Army" was fostered by German propaganda with quite obvious purposes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * German propaganda had little influence on Red Army soldiers. And, of course, politruks took care about it and prevented distribution of German propaganda among the soldiers, so there was almost no way to inject idea "Vlasov is a head of all collaborationists" into Red Army, if German propaganda tried it. "Vlasovets" became synonym for every "traitor" only after the war. It wartime period they were called "traitors of Motherland" or just "traitors". For example, in 19/04/1943 there were "Decree about punishments for German-Fascist villains who are guilty in murders and tortures of Soviet civil population and Red Army POWs, for spies and traitors of Homeland from the Soviet citizens and their accomplices". As you see, no mention of "vlasovtsy". In war stories about partisans and traitors - partisans never called their traitors "vlasovtsy". In stories written during the war, soldiers didn't use "Vlasovets" as umbrella term. "Vlasovtsy" - it was after the war, when numerous trials took place. Trial of Vlasov was one of the most famous.--El gato verde (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. However, I still do not understand how it is relevant to this thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Forget about it :)--El gato verde (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it Wiki policy to just revert stuff before trying to look at the sources given? The sources do not state that the Russian and Ukrainian military units of their respective committees were volunteers in the Wehrmacht - the Ukrainian National Army was not a Wehrmacht army. Some early elements of the ROA were directly under the committees control, later all units were be transferred, the source states "In January 1945 the KONR had a total strength of 50,000 men. On the 28th of that month it was officially declared that the Russian divisions no longer formed part of the German Army, but would directly be under the command of KONR". The units were directly subordinate to their respective governments-in-exile that had been recognized and granted independence by Germany. And that these governments-in-exile actively pursued armed conflict with the Soviet Union. I believe the source given for Tannu Tuva only states that it declared war on Germany, I don't believe Tannu Tuva in anyway fought Germany on a military basis, it was itself annexed by the Soviet Union in 1944. As for the Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland, it controlled no territory, and had no army that was directly subordinate to its command, was only a political entity. Although I'm not entirely sure what the source given for it states. Please stop being so biased. These are legitimate references. Lt.Specht (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "I don't believe Tannu Tuva in anyway fought Germany on a military basis." It did. At least one reliable source (Tuva. A State Reawakens. Author(s): Toomas Alatalu. Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 5 (1992), pp. 881-895) states that "soldiers from that independent country fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44".
 * Re: "The units were directly subordinate to their respective governments-in-exile that had been recognized and granted independence by Germany." I don't think that recognition by Nazi Germany (during the very last days of the war) is sufficient to speak seriously about the government-in-exile. And, in addition, I am not aware of sources that state that Germany had any plans to give an independence to Russia or Ukraine after liberation them from Communists. Both Ukrainian and Russian "governments" were just puppet formation, and they were not recognized as independent even by Nazi Germany.
 * Re: "Some early elements of the ROA were directly under the committees control" The committee itself was a purely puppet formation, so this arguemnt is absolutely irrelevant. In addition, since the only ROA formation was the 600th German Infantry Division, what "some early elements" do you mean concretely?
 * And, finally, please, take into account that the changed made by you were not supported by other editors. In that situation the correct way is to try to convince other editors on the talk page, and only after that to edit the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the source on Tannu Tuva says "soldiers from that independent country fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44"., why was my edit to Tannu Tuva reverted? How can an annexed country continue to be in a state of war? The source evidently says soldiers from the country only fought from 1943-1944. Sources on Germany recognizing the independence of the Ukraine and Russia state: "The Germans remained reluctant to recognize Ukraine's independence, and only did so in March 1945" (Abbott, Peter (2004). Ukrainian Armies 1914-55. Osprey Publishing. p. 41. ISBN 1841766682.) From 1943 onwards the name of the Russian Liberation Army, ROA, was heard with increasing frequency, and Vlasov emerged as its natural leader. At last, in October 1944, he was allowed to create a "government in exile" in the form of the Committee for the Liberation of the Russian Peoples, KONR. (Jurado, Carlos (1983). Foreign Volunteers of the Wehrmacht 1941-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 27. ISBN 0850455243.) In the source, Pavlo Shandruk, Arms of Valor, Robert Speller & Sons Publishers, Inc., New York 1959, there is a copy of the formal declaration of the act of recognition by Germany regarding the Ukraine:

''"Reichsminister Alfred Rosenberg. Berlin, March 12, 1945.


 * To: General Pavlo Shandruk, Berlin-Charlottenburg.


 * ''In order to make possible the full participation in the decisive phase of the war against Bolshevism, and to introduce the proper order into national relations in Europe,
 * in the name of the German Government I recognize the acting organ of the national representation of Ukraine formed by you as the Ukrainian National Committee. I declare:


 * (1) The Ukrainian National Committee is the sole representation of the Ukrainian People recognized by the German Government;


 * (2) The Ukrainian National Committee has the right to represent the interests of the future Ukraine, and to manifest same in Declarations and Manifestoes. After final clarification of the matter of assembling those Ukrainians who are serving in the German Army, I shall make a demand that all Ukrainian units be joined together for the formation of a Ukrainian Liberation Army.

On the ROA, the 600th German Infantry Division was not the only military formation (that is not the correct name of the 600th Division according to the source as well), and is there a source which describes the committee as a purely puppet formation, and wouldn't that be like the Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland, and Tannu Tuva if it was? The land units comprising the ROA were as follows: ''The divisions were named '600th Panzergrenadier Div.' and '650th Panzergrenadier Div.', and they were formed at Munsingen and Heuberg training areas. A third division was being in the process of formation at the end of the war; and some small units were also formed, including a depot brigade, a technical battalion and an officers' school. (Jurado, Carlos (1983). Foreign Volunteers of the Wehrmacht 1941-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 28. ISBN 0850455243.) For the early elements, the KONR had its own tiny air element by December 1943 that was created in conjunction with the Luftwaffe, units described are: the 'I. Ostfliegerstaffle (russische)' (1st Eastern Squadron-Russian)'', this unit was disbanded in July 1944. The KONR air force, formed after the I.'s disbandment, was commanded by Gen. Maltsev, had a nominal strength of three squadrons, (fighter, light bomber and reconnaissance), a flak regiment, a parachute battalion, and a signal battalion (Jurado, Carlos (1983). Foreign Volunteers of the Wehrmacht 1941-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 27. ISBN 0850455243.) There is no mention of either of these units being under German command or authority, and the later unit is identified as being commanded by Maltsev, an ROA General. Does this all not merit the Committees being treated as belligerents? Men under their control were not "volunteers in Wehrmacht", the reason why they were evidently removed. I also agree that volunteers in the Wehrmacht should not be treated as belligerents, but this is not the case. And was adding Tannu Tuva and Poland to the article made with a consensus? The only person who has commented on Tannu Tuva has been myself, and I feel it is biased to include it while excluding other legitimate sourced belligerents. Regarding Poland, another user has expressed concern, Erikupoeg, citing concern over it being a Soviet puppet government with little military or political impact. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (signed) – ROSENBERG."

Re: "why was my edit to Tannu Tuva reverted?" Because the source clearly states that Tuva declared a war on Germany in 1941 and physically participated in the EF hostilities before it had been annexed. That is sufficient to list it among the belligerents.

Re German recognition of Ukrainian independence. I am not sure the recognition of the Ukrainian national committee by Germany during the very last days of the war was the less propaganda step then recognition of, e.g., "the Terijoki Government" by the Soviets.

Re: "From 1943 onwards the name of the Russian Liberation Army, ROA, was heard with increasing frequency, and Vlasov emerged as its natural leader." Correct. The name was heard. However, there were nothing else behind that. It was a pure propaganda, Vlasov had no real authority over any military formation. His "army" existed only on paper (see the quote on the section's top). Re: "There is no mention of either of these units being under German command or authority, and the later unit is identified as being commanded by Maltsev, an ROA General." Judging by their names, they were ordinary Wehrmacht Panzergrenader divisions. That authomatically means that they were under OKH authority. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC
 * On questioning who actually commanded the ROA divisions, I believe the source is quite clear. "In January 1945 the KONR had a total strength of 50,000 men. On the 28th of that month it was officially declared that the Russian divisions no longer formed part of the German Army, but would directly be under the command of KONR".(Jurado, Carlos (1983). Foreign Volunteers of the Wehrmacht 1941-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 28. ISBN 0850455243.) Ukrainian independence does not also seem purely propaganda. Otherwise they would of never allowed the Committee to act independently, form its own army and engage in conflict with the Soviets. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Decisive victory as a result
Jean-Jacques George said: ''"decisive" is used for individual battles that were decisive for the fate of the overall conflict (i.e. the battle of Stalingrad). The conflict as a whole was a Soviet victory, period''. But let's look at this wars: And so on. It's look like not only battles can have "decisive" outcome.--El gato verde (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Falklands War. Decisive British military victory.
 * 2) Six-Day War. Decisive Israeli victory.
 * 3) Spanish Civil War. Decisive Nationalist victory.
 * 4) Invasion of Poland. Decisive Axis and Soviet victory.
 * 5) Franco-Prussian War. Decisive German victory.
 * 6) Second Schleswig War. Decisive German victory.
 * 7) French invasion of Russia. Decisive Russian victory.
 * 8) Gunboat War. Decisive British victory.
 * The concept of decisive victory has always remained beyond me. Is there such thing as a non-decisive victory of a separate conflict then? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is intuitively clear: if one party completely achieved its goal whereas the another one completely failed the victory is decisive. If the victorious party failed to achieve all its goals, the victory is not decisive. The example of a non-decisive victoriy is the Winter war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "if one party completely achieved its goal". Or made even more.--El gato verde (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "If the victorious party failed to achieve all its goals, the victory is not decisive. The example of a non-decisive victoriy is the Winter war". USSR achieved all its goals, by the way, though paid big price for it. We may call it "decisive strategic victory", because outcome of conflict aided to keep Leningrad in Red Army hands. For example, Edouard Daladier said about it "It is great victory for USSR".--El gato verde (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So there must be more solid criterias. I will not stop on them, I'll say that Soviet victory in Great Patriotc War of Soviet nation is decisive one. Even the most decisive victory in the world history, because it saved Europe and America from the Nazi slavery.--El gato verde (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * About what? Daladier, Leningrad or saving the world?--El gato verde (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The result of the Eastern Front --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The result is obvious: USSR is militarily stronger than before the war, Wehrmacht doesn't exist (except 10 divisions kept by dear ally Churchill for operation Unthinkable) so it is decisive victory for Soviet Union. If Germany would win, Soviet Union would be completely destroyed, then Syberia is occupied by Japan, UK is destroyed in Europe, Africa and West Asia by Germany and in East Asia - by Japan (Hitler wanted after operation Barbarossa to deal with UK and it was written in that plan). Then USA and Canada would collapse after joint war against Japanese and German fleet. Whole world is under Nazi Germany and Japan.--El gato verde (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And the definition of decisive victory only covers conflicts that are part of a larger military conflict. So the intuitively clear idea appears to be wp:or. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Great Patriotic War of Soviet nation a part of larger military conflict? Do the words "decisive victory" present in Falkland War, Six-Day War and so on?--El gato verde (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely it was. I'd just like to see some reference for it being a decisive victory, that's all. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's obvious case, so there is no need to references. Like the battle of Moscow or battle of Stalingrad.--El gato verde (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very strange that despite you was born in USSR, you don't know that Soviet Union called victory in Great Patriotic War "great victory" and wrote it from big letter.--El gato verde (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing the size of letters here but the outcome of the campaign. And the fact that the victory in the Eastern Front was more decisive in the WWII than, say, the Second Sino-Japanese War is not obvious to neither me nor the majority of readers, so let's still see the sources. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There were no victors in the SSJW: from 1941 till the Japanese surrender the situation there can be characterised as stalemate, so we can speak about neither decisive nor non-decisive victory there. With regards to sources, Chris Bellamy (TitleAbsolute war: Soviet Russia in the Second World War Publisher Alfred A. Knopf, 2007 ISBN 0375410864, 9780375410864) on the first page of the introduction states that this conflict "was a decisive component - arguably the singe most decisive component - of the Second World War".--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Still this falls short of using the term decisive victory. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great Patriotic War saw the battles that turned tides one and for all: battles of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. Not Desert War, not Italian Campaign, not Normandy operation, not strategic bombing of peaceful works quarters of German cities turned tides. Spearheads of Wehrmacht were destroyed near Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk, not under Tobruk, Paris or Monte-Cassino. Japanese victory in Pacific War ove USA wouldn't mean that USSR would inevitable loser (Japan should end the war in China and strike aganst superior Red Army). On the contrary, German victory over USSR meant death sentence to USA and UK.--El gato verde (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if your point is that the Eastern Front was, by and large, a major part of WWII, and, consequently, we cannot speak about the EF's results in terms of their influence on the outcome of some greater conflict (in other words, that "the victory in the Eastern front" = "victory in WWII as whole"), I would agree that "decisive" would be redundant. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Soviet Victory over Germany" = "Victory in WWII as whole". "German victory over USSR" = "Death sentence to UK and USSR". "USA victory over Japan" meant nothing to European front, "Japanese victory over USA" meant "Possibility of Japanese attack" to USSR.--El gato verde (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing more. Japanese army was very inferior to Red Army in tanks, artillery, tactics and operational art. Japanese army had no chances.--El gato verde (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's open "Correspondence of the Council of Ministers of the USSR with the U.S. Presidents and Prime Ministers of Great Britain during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945., V. 2. M., 1976, pp. 204 " ("Переписка Председателя Совета Министров СССР с президентами США и премьер-министрами Великобритании во время Великой Отечественной войны 1941-1945 гг., т. 2. М., 1976, с. 204"). "The United States is well aware of the fact that the Soviet Union bears the weight of the fight."

- F. D. Roosevelt

"Red Army decided the fate of German militarism."

- W. Churchill

"French people know what Russia has done and know that Russia has played a major role in their liberation."

- C. de Gaulle

Will I continue or are no more any objection to write "Decisive Soviet victory"?--El gato verde (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Quotes selected by a totalitarian regime and presented out of their context are hardly reliable. A comparative analysis of the weights of the theaters of WWII must be cited here instead. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, evil totalitarian regime tortured Roosevelt, Churchill and de Gaulle and forced them to say "Red Army is the strongest, it decided the fate of German militarism". I wanna listen to the stories, how diplomatic correspondence could be biased, for example, in what context Churchill could say "Red Army decided the fate of war" and, despite of this, deny the decisive role of Red Army. Comparative analysis? There is nothing to compare: 70% of Wehrmacht were destroyed on Eastern Front. Of course, British historian Norman Davies is totalitarian liar or he was caught by KGB and forced to say in "Sunday Times" in 05/11/2006: How we didn't win the war... but the Russian did. It's look like KGB forced Norman Davies to say:

"The attack on the Third Reich was a joint effort. But it was not a joint effort of two equal parts. The lion’s share of victory in Europe can be awarded only to Stalin’s forces and it is a fantasy to believe that he was fighting for justice and democracy."


 * Of course, KGB told him to make deception measures: for example, Davies was forced to say "it is a fantasy to believe that he [Stalin] was fighting for justice and democracy".

"Since 75%-80% of all German losses were inflicted on the eastern front it follows that the efforts of the western allies accounted for only 20%-25%."


 * And - for deception - KGB forced Davies to sing song about "annexed Baltic states" (which asked USSR to join to it), "unprovoked aggression against Finland" (it's look like there was no quote from Finnish president "Every enemy of Russia should be friend of Finland").

"The Third Reich was largely defeated not by the forces of liberal democracy, but by the forces of another mass-murdering tyranny."


 * Evil totalitarian regime tortured scientist and forced him to mix "Soviet Union played crucial role in WWII" with "Billion humans had been executed by Stalin personally"!

"The Americans arrived too late and in too few numbers to play the dominant role."


 * Very cool. British historian knows about decisive role of Soviet Union, but person has been born in this country - doesn't :)--El gato verde (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All of this is about victory in Europe whereas there is still no analysis cited, not superficially performed by a Wikipedia editor, between different theatres of war. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not my problem, that you didn't see the words about percentage of German losses and percentage of Allied forces. It's not my problem that you didn't see analysis. It's not my problem that you even don't wish to look at admissions of Allied leaders about big role of Soviet Union. If German victory in France deserves to be "decisive", then Soviet victory over Germany deserves epithet "decisive" too.--El gato verde (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen your analysis but unfortunately this is Wikipedia, which allows no WP:OR. So please cite a comparison. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I cited Norman Davies.--El gato verde (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, of course the eastern front was very important, no one is denying this. But what El gato verde does not seem to understand is that decisive is generally used for individual battles that decisively affected the course of the war. i.e., the battle of Stalingrad was decisive for the eastern front. Then again, the eastern front is not conceived as a battle but, as its name indicates, as a front, that is, a conflict between two sides. So of course the Soviet victory was decisive, since they won that conflict. Likewise, Western front was a decisive Axis victory in 1940, and a decisive Allied victory in 1945, the Pacific war was a decisive Allied victory, and so on. Listing each victory in each front does not make sense, since each front is a conflict per se in a worldwide conflict, and each one is decisive. So of course, the winner's victory is decisive, since they have won. This is a bit like putting "decisive Japanese victory" as a result of First Sino-Japanese War, or "decisive United States victory" in American Revolutionary War.
 * What I mean is that "decisive" goes for individual operations or battles. "Decisive victory" is fine for battle of Stalingrad, of battle of Berlin not for the Eastern front as a whole, since this was a war between the USSR and Germany (not to mention a front in a world war, each front being decisive in a war). Of course it is decisive in a war that the winner wins. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless we get a secondary source that defined the term "decisive victory", the question of usage or not usage of the word "decisive" should be resolved using a common sense. Although your considerations sound quite logically, some counter arguments can be put forward. For example, one party can be victorious, however, it may be in position when it is unable to enjoy the fruits of its victory (or it appears to be unable to achieve all its goals). The examples of the victories that were not decisive are the victory of the USSR in the Winter war (although the USSR got the territorial concessions it insisted in, it failed to convert Finland into its satellite, and instead got one more serious opponent in the conflict that started next year), or the Entente's victory in WWI (although both UK and France were formally victorious, the main war's cause, German expansionism and militarism, had not been weeded out, and French spirit appeared to be so undermined that it was unable to seriously resist to Germany in 1937-40). In that sense, the Soviet victory was in EF was really different, and we do have a ground to call it "decisive".--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Finland was enemy to USSR even before Winter War, by the way :)--95.55.228.31 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with "decisive victory" across Wikipedia is that people usually add it based on their personal judgment instead of providing sources. Currently, the two cited sources don't back up the statement that the Eastern Front was overall decisive. The first source is a quote from Churchill saying the "Red Army decided the fate of German militarism". That shows the Red Army played a critical role, but it doesn't mean the victory was overall decisive. The second source cites the German losses on the eastern front, but a decisive victory is not defined purely by the number of losses, so it's original research. I think there were far too many Soviet casualties for the victory to be safely called decisive, but our personal opinions are irrelevant. Unless there's a source that explicitly uses the term "decisive victory", I'll change it to simply "Soviet victory". Spellcast (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there were far too many Soviet casualties for the victory to be safely called decisive.
 * That shows the Red Army played a critical role, but it doesn't mean the victory was overall decisive. It mean that victory of Red Army was decisive. Critical role = decisive role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.52.70.108 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tannu Tuva
Tannu Tuva was annexed in 1944 by the Soviet Union and became the Tuvan Autonomous Oblast ("Tannu Tuva." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 31 Mar. 2010 []) ("countries involved in World War Two " Aviation during World War II. Century of Flight. []). The source listed with Tannu Tuva evidently says that Tannu Tuva is somehow still at war. However, the source also says "soldiers from that independent country (Tannu Tuva) fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44". The source seems to be unreliable. It jointly states that Tannu Tuva only fought on the Eastern front from 1943-44 (indicating its date of annexation), then tells that Tannu Tuva is still at war past 1944. It may have been that the district in the Soviet Union, Tuvan Autonomous Oblast, was in a state of war with Germany, but itself was part of the Soviet Union. That would be like listing the Free State of Prussia, which was an internal part of Germany, as a separate entity. Also noted is that Tannu Tuva was under effective Soviet control for the duration of the war ("countries involved in World War Two " Aviation during World War II. Century of Flight. []). The date of Tannu Tuva ceasing to exist as any recognizable state should be its date of exit. I believe that it should be removed completely however, the only country in the world that recognized Tannu Tuva as an "indepedent country", and had diplomatic relations with, was the Soviet Union. (McMullen, Ronald. "Tuva: Russia's Tibet or the Next Lithuania? ". Friends of Tuva (FoT). []). None of the other Allies did, nobody. It's "state of war with Germany" would seem irrelevant considering that Germany never had diplomatic relations with them while they were an "independent country",and the sources mention of "soldiers from that independent country..." is simply to vague. The word "soldiers" could mean two men. The source is to unreliable to support. It contradicts itself and clearly takes a biased approach by labeling it "independent" while it was most surely a Satellite state of the Soviet Union, that effectively controlled it for at least the duration of the war. It should be removed. Lt.Specht (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Forgetting Tuva while remembering the disappearance of the Baltic states seems even more perplexing when we recall that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had been part of the Russian empire since the 18th century, while Tuva had been in the Russian sphere of influence only from 1912 and formed part of it from 1914 to 1921.''
 * The source clearly states that Tuva was an independent state and that its solders did participate in the hostilities. The statement about alleged unreliability of the source is not justified: the article has been published in thw western peer-reviewed history journal and, therefore, has been wetted by scientific community. Per WP:SOURCES, the source belongs to the most reliable sources. If someone has doubts about its reliability, he/she should go to WP:RSN. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, Tannu Tuva was clearly annexed in 1944 and ceased to be any recognizable state. States which no longer exist do not qualify for belligerents. And, does the source say how many soldiers? Which divisions? And if they were actually under Tannu Tuva command, instead of just its soldiers being in Soviet divisions? The majority of sources also conclude that Tannu Tuva was not an "independent state", the burden of evidence is against this source. Should also add that, (David J., Dallin (1971). Soviet Russia and the Far East. Archon Books; the University of Virginia. p. 84. ISBN 0208009965), states that THE COLONY OF TANNU TUVA - No other territory under Soviet control or influence has constituted as a clear-cut a type of colony as Tuva. and it also comments on Mongolia's international recognition in relation to Tuva's (p. 82), No other nations, with the exception of Tannu Tuva, itself not recognized anywhere, recognized the Mongolian Republic. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Below are some quotes that answer your questions:
 * "''Actually, Stalin's empire also swallowed a fourth state during World War II-Tuva, a country the size of Greece (170 000 sq. km.)-but what happened to that country on 11 October 1944 passed unnoticed by the world. Even Soviet citizens were initially denied knowledge of a widening of their country's borders. The first news of the event in Russian was published not in Moscow but in the 1 November 1944 issue of Tuvinskaya Pravda, published in Kyzyl.1 The events in Tuva in the autumn of 1944 are shrouded in silence even now-a silence which it is difficult to explain. It is sad that even Western accounts of World War II fail to mention either Tuva as a participant in the war ( soldiers from that independent country fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44 ), or the expansion of the Soviet Union at the expense of Tuva's territory.
 * "The period of independence of Tuva, a country squeezed in between Russia and Mongolia, was short (1921-44), and its contacts were limited to its nearest neighbours. Nevertheless, there are sufficient grounds to speak not only of an independent internal and foreign policy, but also to argue that Tuva set an example to the world by abandoning Stalinist socialism in 1932/33 and holding its own for a whole six years. "
 * "In November 1911 Mongolia, which had also been subjected to China, declared itself independent and elected the local spiritual leader or bogdo-gegen as head of state. This provided an impetus also to the neighbouring Tuva. On 15 February 1912 the local elite declared Tuva an independent country, expressed their desire to install the supreme spiritual leader as head of state, and addressed a plea for protection and defence to Russia."
 * "In fact, Tuva only became independent three years later. Both in Mongolia and Tuva the course of events was influenced by the Red Army. After the crushing of the bands led by the Baltic baron von Ungern Sternberg, the power of the bogdo-gegen was restored in Mongolia and a foundation was laid for that country's independence (not recognised by China until 1946). The decision about the independence of Tuva was made at the meeting on 26 June 1921 in Chadan, but not all khoshuns (districts) were represented there."
 * "..the Supreme Soviet decided, on 28 February 1992, to publish all the secret documents linked with 'the voluntary entry' of Tuva into the USSR. The most astonishing thing which was revealed was that juridically Tuva is still now at war with Hitler's Germany !"
 * (Tuva. A State Reawakens Author(s): Toomas Alatalu Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 5 (1992), pp. 881-895)
 * I can provide other sources upon request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still believe that soldiers from that independent country fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44 is far to vague and could mean lots of things, e.g. one could say that "soldiers from independent Spain fought on the Soviet-German front", as soldiers who originated in Spain did fight on the front, however they were volunteers in the German army (as could be the case with Tuva and the Soviet Union). I think it is important to know exactly in what form Tuva's "soldiers" fought, what exact units there were, and if they were actually under Tuvan command. All the belligerents currently listed had at least a corps sized force under their command, and the names of the divisions and commanders are easily accessible through sources on other article's. In regard to Tuva's full independent the sources do seem to disagree. With the former source I mentioned labeling the country a mere colony of the Soviets, however it does not mention the exact time periods, the six years after 1932/33 could of very well been a time of less Soviet influence. I think the international recognition factor is something also to take into consideration as well. Looking back at a previous post you mentioned that "In addition, Tuva and Mongolia should be added as Allied belligerents (I have several sources sating that those two countries were independent states, although strongly dominated by the USSR. In other words, the relations were similar to those between Germany and, e.g. Slovakia." The comparison with Slovakia seems a little off, as a comparison with any of the listed countries would be, as Slovakia was recognized by every member of the Axis as an independent country, and by several other neutral nations, whilst the only countries in the world that recognized Tuva as a country were the Soviets and Mongolia, none of the other countries it was supposedly allied with. The Tuva is still now at war with Hitler's Germany! in Alatalu's source seems rather non–encyclopedic and honestly troubling, and would be a complete joke to follow this as you suggested before, one would have to put (1941-Present) for its years in the war (noting that Tuva never regained "independence" after being annexed in 1944, strange how it could be at war while part of Russia today). Another troubling thing in relation to that statement is that it states, the Supreme Soviet decided, on 28 February 1992, to publish all the secret documents..., this would of been simply impossible, as the Soviet Union was dissolved on December 8, 1991, and the Supreme Soviet dissolved along with it, it was not in existence on 28 February 1992. If you have any other sources in relation to the specific divisions and units it would be helpful, along with other things I've mentioned. I've been looking for anything that might elaborate on Tuvan divisions on the front, and have found nothing so far. Lt.Specht (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

New Battle of Stalingrad template
I've created a template for the Battle of Stalingrad (see foot of the article). It is still at a rudimentary stage and if you would like to comment on it please visit the template talk page and add your comments there (Template talk:Battle of Stalingrad). Please amend the template, correct it and add whatever you feel is appropriate. The basis for inclusion is pretty much the frequency with which any of the items is mentioned in Beevor's book on the battle. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Suvorov POV
User:DJ Sturm added a paragraph putting forward Suvorov's thoughts as established fact. I removed it. DJ Sturm also changed the Soviet preparations section to point not to Operation_Barbarossa but to Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy. The former link is more balanced. DJ Sturm then added some text and references establishing the German POV that the USSR was preparing for immediate war, when the established consensus among most historians is that the Soviets were about one year away from considering themselves ready to attack. I tagged the bit, noting it needs to be balanced. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just removed the other para about Suvorov's views. Suvorov's argument is generally considered a fringe view, and it's better to have nothing about it in this article than only one side. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Russians vs Soviets
I've just noticed someone replaced the word "Soviet" with the word "Russian", although no sources has been provided in support for such a change. I'll revert it soon if no serious arguments/sources will be provided in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Russian' is totally inappropriate - the country in question was the Soviet Union and a high proportion of the Soviet troops were from outside of Russia. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Mention of mass rape and Gulag
Why was the mention of Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army removed from the leading section? It was the greatest mass rape in history, having an effect to the life of 2 million girls and women and resulting with death of 240,000. If that war crime can be considered of "too small proportion", then I'm not sure, did for example death marches touch so many lives and therefore deserve to be mentioned there.

Gulags were surely part of the Eastern Front, just as extermination camps behind German front were. Gulags were full of people who were arrested by the Soviet authorities in frontline area. DJ Sturm (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Anyway, I believe that, although, without any doubts, mass rapes should be mentioned in the article, they should be removed from the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * GULAG camps were not extermination camps. I can provide a reliable source (not a website or a magazine article) that explicitly states that. High mortality of GULAG prisoners during the war was a result of a food and medication shortage, not of the deliberate policy. With regards to the rapes, this is a highly controversial subject. The estimates of the number of victims vary by an order of magnitude. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that the number of rapes is assumed to be equal to the number of abortions in a Soviet controlled zone: the abortion was free for every woman who claimed to be raped by Soviet soldiers. It is hard to tell now what was a degree of coercion in each concrete sex. For instance, it is well known that in American controlled zone German woman had to practice a kind of "commercial sex" (I deliberately avoid the word "prostitution" because it bear some negative connotation, which is unneeded in that case), and, according to some memoirs, the same took place in the Soviet controlled zone. Of course, by no means it was a voluntary sex, however, it would be incorrect to count every abortion made after such a "sex-for-food" as a rape.
 * I haven't claimed that Gulag were extermination camps. What I say, is that they were clearly related to the Eastern Front. OK, if there is no place for mass rape in the leading section, then why are death marches, ghettos and pogroms different - then we should remove those too? DJ Sturm (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with DJ Sturm, there was no implication in what was added to the lead, only what was from already in the article. There's no reason why they cant be mentioned in the lead, they're on par with other things mentioned. They're very much appropriate to be mentioned in the lead. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:LEDE, the lede section "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." Did GULAG belong to the most important EF events? Judging by the article (as well as by what the sources say), I wouldn't say so. GULAG had only a tangential relation to the Eastern Front: it was the USSR's internal affair, and the only significant connection between GULAG and the Eastern Front was the desperate shortage of food the USSR in 1942-43 that caused a huge number of excess death among GULAG inmates. With regards to the rest, I would say that the NKVD power significantly decreased during the war: the only mass repressions during that periods were mass deportations of ethnic groups suspected in collaboration with the Germans (exactly the same what the Americans did with their ethnic Japanese and German compatriots). One way or the another, although GULAG should be mentioned in the article, it definitely has no place in the lede.
 * Re: "if there is no place for mass rape in the leading section, then why are death marches, ghettos and pogroms different - then we should remove those too?" The death marches, pogroms and ghettos are well known events that caused a huge amount of deaths. Most of these events are well documented and are indisputable. The rapes are a highly controversial subject. It should be discussed in the Soviet war crimes article, not in the EF's lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You just claimed Paul the rapes, this is a highly controversial subject and cited the WP:LEDE ...summarize... any notable controversies, the result: the rapes shouldn't be in the lede section. I'm not getting it, the rapes were "a highly controversial subject" just that in your opinion not notable?...since like you pointed out 'any notable controversies should be included' but not the rape controversy. Or am I missing something? How about the fact that Soviet soldiers had a choice to get shot from the front or to their backs by the NKVD Security Troops. Is that a notable fact in the context?--Termer (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC) With regard to the rapes, they are far less known and much more controversial than the German war crimes. Even the number of victims is unknown, and the estimates vary by more than one order of magnitude (from tens of thousands to millions).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just re-read the words you quoted: ...summarize... any notable controversies. Only notable controversies should be placed in the lede. Is the rape of German woman (the real scale of which is still unknown) notable enough for the Eastern front article? No. As I already said, this controversy is notable for the Soviet war crimes article, not for this one. With regards to the barrier troops, they existed only on paper: after some short period the Red Army command realised that the barrier troop had the opposite effect, so the idea to use such troops was quietly dropped after few months. For source, see "Ivan's war".--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right then, so the Holocaust too had only a tangential relation to the Eastern Front and it was Germany's internal affair. Gulag and mass rapes are too well-known events that caused a huge amount of deaths, but it doesn't seem to be enough. Let's talk about the Holocaust too only in German war crimes article. DJ Sturm (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that parallelism is correct. GULAG and the Holocaust were not similar for several reasons. (i) The large scale Holocaust (I mean not persecution of Jews but the program of their mass extermination) started during the EF events (Wannsee conference), whereas the Great Purge started four years before that, and essentially ended by 1940 (except in the Baltic states and Poland; however, I didn't propose to remove the words about mass deportations from the lede, and these words are still there). (ii) The Holocaust took place mostly in the newly conquered territories and was directly connected with the conquests, whereas majority of GULAG inmates came from the USSR's mainland before the Eastern Front events started (again, I do not talk about the deportees, however deportations are mentioned in the lede). (iii) The Eastern Front was represented by Nazi propaganda as a crusade against the world Jewry, whereas Stalin's repressions against "the enemies of people" essentially ceased during the WWII (he renewed them later, but it is a different story).
 * On the mass rapes, this is very much established fact. If you look over the Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army article, Soviet_war_crimes section of the Soviet war crimes article, you will find that the content and the sources all agree with one another. There is no question to the controversies legitimacy. What you seem to be proposing are quite frankly fringe or revisionist theories. A very reputable and reliable author, Antony Beevor, has stated that the mass rapes were the greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history and that At least 100,000 German women were raped in Berlin during the Soviet invasion, and about 10,000 died as a result, many committing suicide. It was far worse in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia, which took the brunt of Russian revenge and where the civilian population was decimated and about 1.4 million women were raped. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/16/1052885399546.html) I'd say that the greatest phenomenon of mass rape in human history is a notable controversy without a doubt, and should be listed in the lead, everyone (except Paul) seems to be agreeing with this. Lt.Specht (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than go around in circles, it would be helpful if you could all suggest text. Given the massive scale of the war crimes which took place on the Eastern Front they do belong in the lead, but in a neutral and sensible way (eg, there's no need for equal coverage to provide 'balance' - the incidence of crimes should determine this). Incidently Paul, it is not at all the case that Stalin's repressions "essentially ceased" - they were toned down somewhat, but continued on a massive scale, and it's been estimated that a million people died in the Gulags each year during the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that "essentially ceased" is not the best wording. Stalin's repressions ceased only after his death. "Toned down" is more correct. With regards to "million people dying in GULAG each year", you probably use some outdated source: recent sources provide a precise fugures of GULAG mortality, and these figures are much lower than one million per year (see, e.g. File:Gulag Prisoner Stats 1934-1953.PNG; the source is the article in a peer-reviewed western scientific journal, and we have no ground to question these numbers). The maximal mortality took place in 1942 (~300,000 deaths) and it coincided with a desperate food shortage in the USSR. Moreover, after 1941 the number of prisoners decreased sharply, partially due to mass releases. With regards to the text, as I already wrote, the mention of mass deportations does belong to the lede, and I already added it. By contrast, GULAG, execution of prisoners by NKVD and rapes hardly belong to the lede, because they are not extensively discussed in the article (correctly).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Re rapes. Below is the quote from peer-reviewed scientific journals that demonstrates my point, namely, that the rape issue is highly controversial (and is not limited with the Soviet occupation zone):
 * "''A second matter necessary to establish the context for our story involves the wave of rapes and sexual violence that occurred in Central Europe in 1944/45. As Allied and Soviet troops battered their way into the Third Reich, a negative assessment of all-things-German governed their thinking. Given this "come-as-conqueror" mentality, superimposed upon even more primal desires to breakdown resistance and reinforce male domination, some soldiers saw fit to brutalize and rape German women, a situation that particularly marked the invasion of the eastern German provinces by the Red Army. With Soviet troops openly encouraged to regard German women as plunder, it is no surprise that nearly two million German women may have been raped. Even in western Germany, however, there was a considerable spate of raping by French and American forces, particularly during April and May 1945.
 * Even more disturbing than this forebearance was the fact that the boundary between rape and consensual sex was blurred in the minds of some men, so that the reputation of German women was actually called into question by the disaster that had befallen them. One Ruhr metalworker later remembered vividly a comment made to him by a Black American serviceman: "The German soldiers fought for six years, the German women for only five minutes." Rather than inspiring a spirited defence of his countrywomen, his only reaction to this remark was one of shame.31 Similarly, in Upper Austria, a man reported that "ein Neger" had raped one of his neighbours, but that, strictly speaking, the latter was "a whore anyway." Such blame-the-victim sentiments were definite precursors to anti-fraternization attitudes; in particular, the dichotomy of supposedly soldierly resistance versus female receptivity was soon to become a popular theme in anti-fraternization propaganda."
 * "In the Soviet zones, there was no lack of hatred for Russian occupation troops; the wild raping and looting of the spring of 1945 had created a background with no real parallel in the western zones. Even here, however, there was evidence of voluntary fratenization, particularly because Soviet military police (like their French counterparts) turned a blind eye to the formal nonfratemization rules supposed to govern the behavior of Red Army troops. After everything that had happened during the initial Soviet advance into Germany and Austria, enforcing nonfratemization seemed pointless. Although fear of the Soviets was pervasive, there was considerable evidence of liaisons between Russians and German or Austrian women; Swedish diplomatic personnel in Berlin reported as early as May 1945 that Soviet officers and troops were often seen arm-in-arm with German girls. Some of these relationships stemmed from fear-women made "friends" with decently-acting Russians to get guardians for themselves and their children; some comprised the same form of semi-prostitution evident in the western zones; some were built on a more genuine emotional interplay, particularly because Soviet troops were often billeted with German and Austrian families." (Dangerous Liaisons: The Anti-Fraternization Movement in the U.S. Occupation Zones of Germany and Austria, 1945-1948. Author(s): Perry Biddiscombe Source: Journal of Social History, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Spring, 2001), pp. 611-647)--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the original text which was added is restored. "It also included Gulags, NKVD prisoner massacres, population deportation and mass rape of German women." However, it might need to be reworded a little and placed in along with the already listed crimes. To save talk space, just look at the relevant article's and content within them, they are all notable and controversial enough to be in the lead. And Paul, you also claim to have preserved what was added about deportation in the lead, but fail to mention why you delinked it, and did not explain so in your original reverting of what was added. I'd like to know if any other editors support restoring the original text in one way or another. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This 2007 article ("The unspoken secret: Sexual violence in World War II.") is from International Psychogeriatrics, a peer Reviewed Journal, published by Cambridge Univ Press:

Sexual violence in World War II is still a secret. At the end of World War II, it is estimated that about 1.4-1.9 million German  women were raped by soldiers, mainly those of the Red Army. Because of repeated gang rapes, the total number of rapes was even higher. Rapes by U.S. and French soldiers are also documented, but were not as frequent; 10% of the women committed suicide. The number of murdered women is not known. Approximately 200,000 children were conceived by rape. It must be emphasized here that it is known that German soldiers belonging to the SS and to the Wehrmacht committed sexual  violence, mainly on Russian and Jewish women, before the rape of German  women by Red Army soldiers. The number of rapes is not documented but a letter of the German military police reported a "high number of rapes" at the Russian front. Nazi Germany committed crimes against humanity, culminating in the inexcusable mass murder of 6 million Jewish people. So far, no study on the post-traumatic burden of the women raped at the end of World War II has been published. Such a study could help to understand wartime rape from the victim's perspective and its effects on later life, on post-traumatic symptoms and on post-traumatic growth. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

So yes, it should be mentioned in the lead.  Phoenix of9  00:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, the sexual violence in World War II is not a secret. According to Grossman (Atina Grossmann. A Question of Silence: The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 42-63 Published by: The MIT Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778926), this card was successfully played by both Goebbels propaganda during 1944-45 and in occupied Germany after the WWII:
 * " Nor were these rapes silenced among the women themselves, again at least initially; as I looked at the literature of the postwar years-diaries, memoirs, and novels-I found rape stories everywhere, told matter-of-factly, told as tragedy, told with ironic humor and bravado.15 Women told their stories to authorities from whom they expected specific forms of redress, and they also obsessively retold their stories to each other and to their daughters. They lived, interpreted, and represented their rapes in a particular historical context which they participated in creating. We need to understand how the experience of, the reaction to, and the memory of these rapes was framed by the specific historically toxic conjuncture in which they took place."
 * Secondly, the number of up to 2 million rapes is a result of extrapolation
 * "But, hard—or even soft—facts are hard to come by and unreliable. It has been suggested that perhaps one out of every three of about one and a half million women in Berlin at the end of the war were raped—many but certainly not all during the notorious week of "mass rapes," from April 24 to May 5, 1945, as the Soviets finally secured Berlin. The numbers cited for Berlin vary wildly; from 20,000 to 100,000, to almost one million, with the actual number of rapes higher because many women were attacked repeatedly. Sander and her collaborator, Barbara Johr, speak, perhaps conservatively, of about 110,000 women raped, many more than once, of whom up to 10,000 died in the aftermath. At the same time and despite their virtual fetishization of statistical clarity—they announce on the basis of Hochrechnungen (projections or estimations) that 1.9 million German women altogether were raped at the end of the war by Red Army soldiers."
 * And, finally, the story of rapes cannot be taken out of historical context:
 * "In this particular case, then, on the most mundane (and melodramatic) level, the problem is that this is not (yet another) "universal" story of women being raped by men, as Helke Sander would have it, but of German women being abused and violated by an army that fought Nazi Germany and liberated death camps. Mass rapes of civilian women also signaled the defeat of Nazi Germany-a historical event I learned to call Befreiung (liberation) but which Germans usually described as Zusammenbruch(c ollapse). Therefore, beyond arguments about the veracity of women's reports or pseudostatistical investigations (although I do think that much conventional historical research remains to be done), I am interested in "de-essentializing" and historicizing the rapes Sander addresses in her film; these events cannot, I think, be usefully understood by quick comparison to Kuwait or Yugoslavia, nor can they gain macabre comic relief by editing in clips of U.S. Army anti-venereal disease films."
 * Therefore, I don't think the rape of German woman should be mentioned in the lede separately, although the words "mass rapes" (committed by both Allied and Axis soldiers) can (although not necessarily have to) be in the lede as an example of the overall brutality of the war.
 * With regards to GULAG etc., I saw no fresh arguments for re-introduction of the GULAG into the lede. Links to deportations can be added, however, I have no idea how to introduce the links to several deportations (committed by both sides) simultaneously. NKVD massacres were overshadowed by subsequent German atrocities, so, although they are in the article, I see no reason to introduce them into the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh...Axis forces did not perpetrate a mass rape on the Eastern Front, and most Soviet civilians in German military jurisdiction zones would retreat with the Germans in fear of Soviet reprisals, rape, and pillaging (von Manstein, Erich; Powell, Anthony G.; Hart, B. H. Liddell; Blumenson, Martin [1955] (2004). Lost Victories: The War Memoirs of Hitler's Most Brilliant General. Zenith Press. p. 188 ISBN 0-7603-2054-3). It is clearly the academic consensus that the Soviets perpetrated the rape of 1.4-1.9 million German women. The sources which you are sighting are fringe and not mainstream view per WP:FRINGE, and the source which you just sighted appear to contain things that are just merely the author's opinion and original research Mass rapes of civilian women also signaled the defeat of Nazi Germany-a historical event I learned to call Befreiung (liberation)..., etc. Anyway, I believe that on the issue of the mass rape of German women, at least 4 editors so far support it being in the lead, while 1 is opposed. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Norman Davies' well regarded book Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory states on pages 339–340 that while German troops did not commit rapes on anything like the scale Soviet troops did, both the Waffen SS and Army committed many sex crimes on the Eastern Front - the key sentence is "In all, the soldiers of Nazi Germany committed rape on a massive scale, but given the size of the opportunity presented by their occupation of much of the European continent, it might not be considered excessive". Your claim that Soviet civilians preferred Germans to Soviets is plainly nonsense and the fact that you're claiming the discredited memoirs of a German war criminal is a reliable source tends to undermine the argument you're making. I'm somewhat bemused that you're claiming that articles in academic journals published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are a fringe source! Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "The sources which you are sighting are fringe and not mainstream view". Please, feel free to go to WP:RSN if you have any doubt in reliability of the sources I use.
 * Re: "Axis forces did not perpetrate a mass rape on the Eastern Front" It is hard to establish the amount of woman raped by Wehrmacht soldiers, however, the number of civilians killed by Germans on the Eastern front far exceeds the number of woman raped by the Soviets. In addition, since the number of rapes was established mostly by the abortion records, and the only thing German woman needed to get free abortion was to claim that she was raped, obviously the number of rapes obtained from these records is equal to the number of undesired pregnancies.
 * Re: " It is clearly the academic consensus that the Soviets perpetrated the rape of 1.4-1.9 million German women." The historian Norman Naimark concludes in his careful forthcoming history of the Soviet zone, "It is highly unlikely that historians will ever know how many German women were raped by Soviet soldiers in the months before and years after the capitulation."(Norman M. Naimark, chapter on "Vergewaltigung," in The Russians in Germany: The History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949)--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to Nick, what I was referring to is that Axis forces did not commit a mass rape, as in a mass rape on the scale the Soviets committed. I agree with your conclusion regarding Davie's book. My claim about the civilians is not complete nonsense at all. Manstein is a primary source, do you have a source which directly states his memoirs are discredited? Relevant to also note is that individuals such as Winston Churchill were in uproar over Manstein's trial and conviction on two of seventeen charges (Churchill donated money to Manstein's defense). Manstein would also later serve as a senior adviser to Konrad Adenauer, and served on committees which advised the German parliament on military affairs. Nor was he a Party member or supporter of Hitler. Is he still a completely "discredited" man? If you look over the article for the historical narrative I cited, Verlorene Siege (Lost Victories), there is no mention of its credibility in question, which you claim. In fact, notable and reliable historian, Martin Blumenson, has commented that Lost Victories is the best book of memoirs on the German side and it is indispensable for understanding the conditions and circumstances of Hitler’s war. understanding the conditions and circumstances. Per WP:FRINGE, a source can be fringe if it widely differs from mainstream view. Just because something is published by MIT does not make immune to this possibility. None of your accusations of what I've stated have merit. Lt.Specht (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Myth of the Eastern Front by Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies ll discusses the shortcomings of von Manstein's book, and the fact that he was both a prominent participant in the war and was convicted of serious war crimes means that his memoirs are anything but neutral. I'm not sure what the fact that prominent people continued to respect von Manstein has to do with his book. WP:FRINGE states that "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication" - that condition is clearly met by the viewpoint being published in a highly reliable academic journal. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies ll obviously disagree with Martin Blumenson and some other authors on the books credibility. Lt.Specht (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "Manstein is a primary source" Correct. Per WP:PSTS, "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." With regards to Western German memoirs in general the following quote may be helpful:
 * "West Germans were by no means silent about the "horrifying totality" of the past in the first decade after the end of the war. However, their memories were selective; about the parts of that "totality" in which some Germans were perpetrators they had less to say than about the parts that encompassed their own experiences as victims. About this past-the past of their own loss-their ability to mourn literally filled volumes." (Robert G. Moeller. War Stories: The Search for a Usable Past in the Federal Republic of Germany . The American Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 1008-1048. Published by: American Historical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2169632).
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul Siebert said: "Secondly, the number of up to 2 million rapes is a result of extrapolation"
 * Thats a rather silly thing to say. 30 million war dead is also an estimation. It's in the lead.
 * Paul Siebert said: "And, finally, the story of rapes cannot be taken out of historical context". Noones trying to take it out of the historical context. That was a rather irrelevant thing to say.  Phoenix of9  20:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "30 million war dead is also an estimation." Firstly, "Estimation" and "extrapolation" are two different things. Estimation of war dead was made based on various different data, starting from demographic data to archival records of war deaths. These records can be incomplete, so some assumptions have to be made to compensate for these incompleteness. Nevertheless, different estimations made by different scholars based on different data and different assumptions give about the same results (~27 million of war deaths for the USSR within post-war borders), implying that these estimations are more or less correct. By contrast, extrapolation is the process of constructing new data points outside a set of known data points. In our concrete case, the data for Germany as whole were obtained based on the assumption that the rapes in other parts of Germany occurred with the same intensity as in the Greater Berlin area. Such an assumption may be questionable, so the results of such extrapolation can be (although not necessarily are) unreliable.
 * Re: "Noones trying to take it out of the historical context." I would say, the opposite takes place. The attempt to mention the rapes in the lede, as well the Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army article as whole is a direct attempt to take this events out of the historical context for two reason. Firstly, as the source quotes by me states, the story of mass rapes of German women by the red Army solders was "not (yet another) "universal" story of women being raped by men ..., but of German women being abused and violated by an army that fought Nazi Germany and liberated death camps", so the bare mention of rapes without necessary reservations creates a wrong impression of neutrality.  Secondly, the relative lower abundance of rapes of non-German woman by Wehrmacht solders is explained by the fact that sexual contacts between the German men and Untermensch  woman was considered as a kind of Zoophilia by Nazi laws. Nazi preferred to kill  Untermensch  woman, not to rape them, so the Red Army solders saw German woman as human beings whereas Wermacht solders saw Slav or Jewish woman as animals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know that rape estimates were calculated based only on extrapolation from data from Greater Berlin area? Source? Quote?
 * This source (BURDS, J. (2009). Sexual Violence in Europe in World War II, 1939-1945. Politics & Society, 37(1), 35-73. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database) also uses 2 million number and gives many sources:

Driven with the passion for vengeance, Soviet soldiers perpetrated horrendous atrocities on women in the nations of the German allies. Besides a yearning for vengeance, there was also an overweening sense of entitlement among soldiers in the victorious Red Army—the presumption that with victory there came the rights of sexual use of conquered women. It is estimated that some two million women and girls were raped in East Germany alone in the early months following Soviet occupation.77 Most of the violations were gang rapes, usually in front of German eyewitnesses—especially before the eyes of husbands, sons, and fathers. The atrocities were not confined to rape: forced impregnation was a deliberate tactic so as to haunt German society for decades to come with Aryan- Untermenshchen mixed-blood children that would bear the unmistakable features of the Slavs and Central Asians. Likewise, German women were not just murdered, their bodies were often desecrated. Eyewitnesses recalled grisly scenes of women’s naked bodies nailed spread-eagled on the sides of barns.78.......77. Perry Biddiscombe, “Dangerous Liaisons: The Anti-Fraternization Movement in the U.S. Occupation Zones of Germany and Austria, 1945–1948,” Journal of Social History 34, no. 3 (2001): 611–47, 614; Antony Beevor, The Fall of Berlin 1945 (New York: Viking, 2002); Catherine Merridale, Ivan’s War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939–1945 (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006), 283–84, 305, 309–14, 318–20; Norman Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945–1949 (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1995), 69–140; and Alfred Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944–1950 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993). On Jewish women victims of Soviet rape, see Friedman, Speaking the Unspeakable, 62–73.
 * Currently the article mentions many atrocities: "It bore the bulk of the Holocaust as the site of nearly all extermination camps, death marches, ghettos, and most pogroms." Leaving out rapes and gulags violates WP:NPOV.  Phoenix of9  02:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * May I ask what exactly it is you are trying to conclude from the "not (yet another) "universal" story of women being raped by men ..., but of German women being abused and violated by an army that fought Nazi Germany and liberated death camps"? Was the average German woman involved with death camps operated by the German government? Or were all of them members of the NSDAP? How can you compare the rapes of women that had nothing to do with policies or enactments of Nazi laws to them? And the same army that abused and violated them was the army of the government which committed crimes such as the Katyn massacre - and others - Soviet war crimes. Something to add to this discussion to further establish that they were a notable controversy (as this appears to issue in question). Is that the mass rapes were "semi-officially sanctioned" by Soviet authorities - and even by the Soviet Head of Government - Stalin.
 * "Commanders generally turned a blind eye to the rapes. When the Ukrainian Jewish intellectual Lev Kopelev tried to intervene to save a German woman from a group of rampaging soldiers, he was accused of 'bourgeois humanism' and imprisoned for nine years. It was only much later that any punishment was handed out. The reason why Russian generals accepted such appalling lack of discipline was that rape was condoned at the very top. Stalin told the Yugoslav communist leader Milovan Djilas, 'Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?' Added to the semi-official sanction, the Red Army was sex-starved. Its soldiers had been fighting for for years, and in most cases they had not received compassionate leave. The raping became worse again after 23 June 1945, when many female soldiers were sent back to Russia. It became a part of everyday life in the remove villages of Burgenland and Lower Austria where it continued until the end of 1946 or the beginning of 1947.
 * Source: (MacDonough, Giles (2007). After the Reich. Basic Books. p. 26. ISBN 0465003370)
 * Also, in your comparison of Wehrmacht soldiers and Untermensch women, there is a relevant comparison as to why the Russians "raped and murdered so many women" - an irresistible form of vengeance against 'superior' women - the best way to humiliate them.
 * "There has been much discussion of why the Russians raped and murdered so many women on their march to the River Elbe. They were certainly egged on by Ehrenburg and other Soviet propagandists who saw rape as an expression of hatred, and therefore good for morale. Soviet soldiers had also been shown pictures of the Nazi victims of Majdenek, where the dead had simply been identified as "Soviet citizens'. The Germans had been in Russia; they had burned their towns and villages and posed as a Herrenvolk - a nation of the lords.* The Slavs were racially inferior, no better than Helots.† In the circumstances rape must have seemed an irresistible form of vengeance against those 'superior' women and the best way to humiliate them and their menfolk. The worst offenders, it seems, were soldiers from Belorussia and the Ukraine - areas invaded by the Germans. The older soldiers and those having higher education were the lead likely to rape. The higher the standard of living the Russian soldiers encountered, the more they raped. They were disgusted by the plenty, the comfortable houses and the well-stocked larders they found, which stood in such contrast to the poverty they knew from home. The manor houses or caste was particularly prone.
 * ''*The assistant Soviet commander in Germany, Sokolovsky, specifically mentioned the Herrenvolk to justify the rapes. † In February 1943 Hitler drove past a group of Russian slave-labourers working on the road outside Zaporozhe. Filled with loathing he remarked, 'It is quite right to make Slavs do this, those robots! Otherwise they would have no right to their share of the sun!'
 * Source: (MacDonough, Giles (2007). After the Reich. Basic Books. p. 26. ISBN 0465003370)
 * I also agree that leaving them out violates WP:NPOV. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Re: "How do you know that rape estimates were calculated based only on extrapolation from data from Greater Berlin area? Source? Quote?" The quote and the source have already been provided in this thread. I reproduce them again specially for you:
 * "It has been suggested that perhaps one out of every three of about one and a half million women in Berlin at the end of the war were raped—many but certainly not all during the notorious week of "mass rapes," from April 24 to May 5, 1945, as the Soviets finally secured Berlin. The numbers cited for Berlin vary wildly; from 20,000 to 100,000, to almost one million, with the actual number of rapes higher because many women were attacked repeatedly. Sander and her collaborator, Barbara Johr, speak, perhaps conservatively, of about 110,000 women raped, many more than once, of whom up to 10,000 died in the aftermath. At the same time and despite their virtual fetishization of statistical clarity—they announce on the basis of Hochrechnungen (projections or estimations) that 1.9 million German women altogether were raped at the end of the war by Red Army soldiers."(Atina Grossmann. A Question of Silence: The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 42-63 Published by: The MIT Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778926)
 * Re: "Leaving out rapes and gulags violates WP:NPOV." Firstly, not "gulags" but GULAG. Secondly, I already provided the arguments to explain why concretely the mention of GULAG should not be in the lede. Please, provide serious counter-arguments, not bare references to WP policy. Thirdly, I have no objections to mention rapes (not "rapes of German woman by the Red Army"), along with other examples of violence against civilians (mass executions of civilians by Wehrmacht and Einsatzgruppen, mass usage of slave labour in the Third Reich, as well as other similar atrocities seem to be not included explicitly in the lede). And, finally, could you please explain where concretely your quote was taken from? The first source (“Dangerous Liaisons...") definitely contained no such facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "May I ask what exactly it is you are trying to conclude from..." That is simple. Since most sources, including the sources quoted by you, stress a connection between the Wehrmach's actions in 1941-44 and rapes of German woman by Soviet solders, simple mention of rapes (taken out this context) is pure hypocrisy, and references to WP:NEUTRAL are absolutely irrelevant. A casual linkage between 1941-44 atrocities (mass murders, enslavement, genocide etc) and subsequent rapes should be shown in the lede.
 * One more consideration. The stories of mass rapes became a tool to represent German civilians (and, implicitly, Germany as whole) as innocent victims of barbaric hordes from the East ("Stories of wartime victimization of women thus provided one important source for a popular, even official, version of German history sympathetic to Germans' recent experience. Allied bombers and the Nazi Party could serve as the villains in tales of wartime victimization, but memories of flight and rape had an especially profound resonance in the formative years of the Federal Republic."The Hour of the Woman: Memories of Germany's "Crisis Years" and West German National Identity Author(s): Elizabeth Heineman Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 354-395 Published by: American Historical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2170395 ).
 * Re: "... the best way to humiliate them." Correct. However, keep in mind that only human being, not animal, can be humiliated. The Red Army solders saw German woman as enemy humans, whereas the Wehrmacht solders took Slavs and Jews as animals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

mass executions of civilians by Wehrmacht and Einsatzgruppen, mass usage of slave labour in the Third Reich, as well as other similar atrocities seem to be not included explicitly in the lede Those are already mentioned in the lead, as previously pointed out, links to all the current articles which there are on them, adding more text would be fine. Leaving out Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army is wrong and not neutral. A casual linkage between 1941-44 atrocities (mass murders, enslavement, genocide etc) and subsequent rapes should be shown in the lede. That is not a legitimate excuse, only a reason for the mass rapes which took place. Lt.Specht (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The para we are talking about is:
 * "It was the largest theatre of war in history and was notorious for its unprecedented ferocity, destruction, mass deportations, and immense loss of life. It bore the bulk of the Holocaust as the site of nearly all extermination camps, death marches, ghettos, and most pogroms. Various figures average a total number of 70,000,000 dead because of World War II; with over 30 million dead, many of them civilians, the Eastern Front represents about a half of this total, and has been called a war of extermination. It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower."
 * Please, show me where "mass executions of civilians (except Jews) by Wehrmacht and Einsatzgruppen, mass usage of slave labour in the Third Reich, as well as other similar atrocities (against non-Jewish population)" are mentioned there.
 * Re: "That is not a legitimate excuse, only a reason" Correct. However, to list two waves of violence in a row as two independent events, whereas in actuality strict and obvious casual linkage existed between German and Soviet violence is not neutral either.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. It is not clear from the current lede's version by whom the listed atrocities were perpetrated (neither Nazi nor Wehrmacht were mentioned in a context of ghetto, death matches etc), and who were the victims. In connection to that, I am not sure if explicit mention of "rapes of German woman by Soviet soldiers" is in accordance with the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)