Talk:Victory Day (9 May)/Archive 1

Photo
Do we have room for this nice photo (right) on this wikiarticle ? -- PFHLai 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure! Why do you think I aploaded it yesterday? :). Well, also for a Tedder article but there it may get replaced. --Irpen 19:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This (left) looks good, too. -- PFHLai 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Altered text.
I have removed this line from the piece shown, "which contributed most to the defeat of Nazi Germany" and replaced it with, "who lost the most men in it's contribution to defeating Nazi Germany," which is more accurate.

There is no doubt that the Russians suffered terribly at the hands of the Nazi's and I do not wish to diminish that in any way, however, the defeat of Nazi Germany was a combined effort on behalf of the Allies.

If 'D' Day hadn't occurred when it did, Hitler would have been able to send reinforcements to the Eastern front. As it was, he had to divert them south.

One shouldn't be so subjective when posting comments and look at the wider picture. (message left by IP user)


 * D-day occured when the Soviets already liberated their territory on their own and were up to do the job on their own (admitedly with larger losses). The allies waited with landing to be sure that most job of defeating Nazis are done by the Soviets for the reasons that are too lengthy to discuss here. The main goal of the second front was to prevent stalinization of entire Germany and, perhaps most of the rest of Europe as well. It helped that all right but it was not decisive for the German defeat. --Irpen 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Irpen. Perhaps it should be re-phrased to say, "did the most to defeat the Nazi's on German soil." Although I'm not sure that that is entirly accurate. Britain and America had agreed with Russia to let them get to Berlin first.

The phrase "which contributed most to the defeat of Nazi Germany" implies that other efforts were pretty much insignificant, which would be a travesty of the truth. It ignores Britains lone stand (where was Russia then?), it also ignores all the other campaigns, Africa, Italy, Greece, France etc etc.

(Message left by IP user)


 * It doesn't ignore neither British nor US contribution. It's just implies that it was less than the Soviet one which is impossible to doubt. So, you correction is out of place, sorry. Please register. It makes discussion easier. --Irpen 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It implies that the Russian contribution in WWII was greater than any other and that is simply not true. How would Russia have survived if not for American aid and British help? You cannot take the fight against Germany on it's own and ignore all the other conflicts in Europe and Africa. I assume you are Russian and are showing a very nationalistic point of view. It is therefore subjective. Not one country did more to defeat Nazi Germany than any other, but if one had to point to a country that did most, I would naturally point to the UK who stood alone against Germany for over a year. -Amstacey 20:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest we discuss the American and British help at talk:Lend-Lease if this is what you mean. Note that it started pouring only after the Germans were thrown off at Moscow and Stalingrad was in the making (if not over yet). Second, my the Western sources it amounted for no about 10-12% of the Soviet's own industrial output. While an impressive number, it is still 1/10. Your unsybstinated accusations of nationalism are really offensive. Please avoid it. Africa was a minor theatre compared to what was going on in Europe and after the Fall of France the Soviets were the only force to fight the Nazis there. Britain (when, as you say, was "staying alone") was defending its skies and the islands from air raids. It didn't attempt to fight the Nazis in Europe. Your assertion that it possibly did more than anyone else doesn't stand any criticism. Britain and France could have prevented this whole mess from the onset but they chose to appeace Hitler and give him first CZ and then PL. Read Western Betrayal for more. --Irpen 20:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot accept that phrase. It simply is not correct! You talk about the British and French appeasement, which I am in agreement with, it was wrong. But where was Russia at the beginning of the war - also trying (and succeeding) in taking Polish land, then negotiating a treaty with Germany. Russia only entered the war because Germany broke the treaty and please do not just brush aside what happened in the other theatres of war as though they don't matter. They may not have mattered to Russia, because Russia wasn't involved. The number of soldiers lost in the war does not determine who did the most. Like I say, it was an all round joint effort. I will continue changing that sentence ad infinitum, unless and until banned from the site.

In addition,perhaps you would like to check this link http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm which provides a time line for the occurances of the world wars. Russia, in many respects was no better than Germany and set out to expand their own empire, taking land and occupying countries that caused them to be kicked out of the league of Nations. During that time, Whilst we may not have been in a position to mount a land offensive, britain certainly continued an air offensive against Germany and continued fighting in other arena's Amstacey 00:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, you will be blocked for the next 24 hours as per WP:3RR. You already broke that (counting the edits before you registered) but since you are new here, it is excusable. Now, back to the topic. What matters in deciding on whose input was the most crucial is not who lost more people but who destroyed a larger part of the Nazi army. There is no doubt on who did that. As for what was Russia doing, before dividing Poland with Nazis and concluding the Soviet-Nazi pact, Russia was the only power in Europe to oppose the Munich deal and offer a meaningful military help to Czechoslovakia. Later, it hinted many times (through France and directly) that it is prepared to assist Poland, should it have asked. For a totally understandable reason Poland, which found itself between the rock and the hard place, refused because accepting the Soviet help had some dangers as well. However, as Poland found out, relying on Britain was even more dangerous. Anyway, that's off-topic. That Soviet Union contributed more than anyone towards the Victory is not disputed by any serious historian and the article should say so. --Irpen 01:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that I am not the only one who finds that phrase contentious. However, I have done a little more research and made some other enquiries. Out of that comes a recommendation from a historian who doesn't wish to be named. This person is not sure if you are speaking from a historical point of view or if the intent was to simply show how the Russian army Generals felt at that time. If it's the former statement, then it should be qualified with the words, "on land in Europe." If it's the latter, then it's probably true, although I think it should then be worded, "who believed that they contributed most to the defeat of Nazi Germany." I will await your response before editing, unless you do so first. Amstacey 15:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Eastern European Countries
I have removed: As it is relevant to May 8, not May 9.
 * The new holiday is not very popular, as many believe the date is a beginning of just another occupation, by Soviets, rather then liberation from Nazi Germany.

It will be also intersting which other countries switched from May 9 to May 8. abakharev 00:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As it is relevant to May 8, not May 9.

It's relevent to that event of Victory Day, the cause of the controversy isn't because of May 8 but with the events itself. Anyway I will gladly provide explanation why the date was changed. :) --Molobo 17:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Molobo, pls cease polonizing the articles all around. You are welcome to start an article on Polish hatred of the Victory over Germany if you think that it is a topic of merit. This stuff has no place here. --Irpen 17:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please engage in serious discussion. World's history isn't limited to Russia. Unfortunetely Poland and Russia share much of world's history. This article shouldn't be dominated either by Russian or Polish history. Poland was forced to be part of Soviet zone for almost half a century and its situation and choices also have to be presented as well as view of Polish society. and historians --Molobo 17:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is speach by President of Poland regarding the issue of this date :  Why certainly we can't include the whole text as short summary on position of Polish government would be in order. Right now readers don't have an idea while Poland changed the date. --Molobo 01:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And for that, as I suggested, you write the Polish hatred of the Victory Day, Molobo. Don't Polonize every article you see. --Irpen 01:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't why should there be information on Poland if Poland's history is involved with the history. Your answer can't be serious and If you continue in such manner I am afraid whatever credibility you had left will be gone. And let me recall our honourable President's words: ''The Poland that arose as a result of the Yalta accords was not a sovereign country. Already in March 1945 the legal authorities of the Polish Underground State were deceitfully arrested and taken to Moscow. On all of our territories - for political reasons - the terror and persecutions began. The arrests, imprisonments and exiles started. Soldiers of the Home Army, Polish patriots, men and women who had shed their blood for an independent fatherland, were treated by the communist rulers of Poland as criminals, were dealt with in an inhuman manner. The best sons and daughters of the nation were humiliated and slandered. Many of us to this day remember posters with the inscription: "Spit-soiled dwarf of reactions".'' --Molobo 01:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And why did Poland change the date ?
It seems Ghirnadajo and other users want this to remain a mystery to any reader... --Molobo 13:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Because of political considerations" is just enough. There is no need to make this article a tribune for your personal opinions. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  14:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What political considerations ? This is enigmatic. --Molobo 15:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC) There is no need to make this article a tribune for your personal opinions Is there a room for the opinion of President of Poland regarding that issue ? --Molobo 15:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime Lysy changed the wording. I like his version... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  17:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you answer my questions ? --Molobo 20:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What political considerations ?
 * This is irrelevant since Lysy edited that section.

Is there a room for the opinion of President of Poland regarding that issue?
 * Not when this room is bigger than the article itself. Just put an external link to it. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  20:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

 This is irrelevant since Lysy edited that section. I don't see explanation why Poland changed the date. A reader should be informed what were the reasons for the change. --Molobo 20:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)  Not when this room is bigger than the article itself Do you believe that the  statement of President of Poland is sufficiant as a source for explanation as to why the date was  changed ? --Molobo 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer why Poland changed the date is simple: Poland is not in the same time zone as Moscow (and never was) :-) The correct question would be: "why would Poland celebrate 9th of May before 1989?" --Lysytalk 21:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I have read and understand from the various articles, it seems rather obvious why Poland changed the date. They don't wish to associated with the subsequent Russian occupation and to stamp their sovereign status on the issue. It is pertinant to the article and I see no reason why it should not be included. Amstacey 01:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise solution
Perhaps that the Soviet Union lost most of the lives in European Front. --Molobo 17:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Soviets destroyed the largest part of the German Army. This is indisputable. Hence the statement. Please don't troll. --Irpen 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

They also made that Army possible by giving it neccessary resources in 1939-1941. Thus saying they contributed to victory is totally POV. It can also be argued that that USA contributed in largest part. Without vital supplies included in Lend Lease Soviets would be in dire situation. --Molobo 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * About lend-lease read above and talks elsewhere. In short, it amounted to about 10-12% of the Soviet's own indistrial output (western sources) and it started coming after the Germans where thrown off from Moscow and Stalingrad was a done deal. While an important part, what you say cannot "be argued". --Irpen 19:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In short, it amounted to about 10-12% of the It's not the amount that counts, but what it contained and at what time. Giving a industrial output as basis of importance of the deliveries isn't objective as it includes 1945 and things that were mass produced in SU without mentioning rare goods that SU desperetely needed and which USA provided.Also SU contributed to German strenght in years 1939-1941. --Molobo 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is so ridculous to read this paradoxical bickering. The traditional bashing of the soviet union was disregard of human life. And by contrast, western democracies supposedly respect human values more. You watch these propaganda american movies where "Saving Private Ryan" worth the destruction af a jet plane. And now you are saying that several thousand of American trucks makes a decisive contribution to Soviet victory. Disgusting. `'mikka (t) 19:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What is really disgusting is praising SU for the disregard of the lifes of its own citizens. --Lysytalk 07:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is praising this? `'mikka (t) 08:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviets would lose much less lives should others' assistance had been more meaningful, as well as if there was no pre-war obstruction by Poland and allies to the Soviet proposals to meaningfully take on Nazi Germany as early as at the Czechoslovakia stage. --Irpen 07:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a need to take Germany at all if Soviet Russia didn't help to rebuild German army since 1920... --Molobo 10:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't start historical "if"s. `'mikka (t) 08:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I second this request to stop with the historical "if"s. If you guys really want to argue like this, wikipedia is not the place for it. Please be civil to each other, and please stay away from tangent topics.
 * Andy 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the number of lives lost or taken provides one country the right to say they did the most. The British defeated Rommel at El Alamein before the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad, that would have had an effect on German morale. Then the allies attacked Italy, opening up a front there and the Germans had to help the Italians. That was followed by the Invasion of Normandy, yet another front, preventing Hitler from sending reinforcements to the Eastern front and all the while, the Allies are bombing Germany, hampering their war effort in manufacturing weapons and supplies. Coupled with this was the assistance provided to Russia by the allies. It may be Russia's belief that they did the most, but thats all it is, their belief. To state it as fact, is, as I have stated before, subjective, biased and nationalistic. Amstacey 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is evidently a surprise for you, but in order to defeat a country, you have to defeat its army, especially if you're facing an enemy who would not surrender easily. (Wow! it is metaphysical isn't it?). Compared to the Eastern Front, the battle of El Alamein was quite a minor engagement. German troops lost more than half a million soldiers during Stalingrad, a would the Wehrmacht never recovered from.
 * So, if a country A was able to destroy 80% of enemy troops while country B only destroyed 20%, country A can rightfully claim that it contributed the most to enemy defeat. What seems to be the problem? -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to deny the obvious, OTOH, is simply a cold war propaganda. --Irpen 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No offence intended, but you just do not seem to realise that there were other contributing factors to the situation that cannot and should not be ignored. Russians threw men at the Germans like lemmings following each other over the cliff face. Eventually, numbers won the day on the Eastern Front. YOU believe Russians contributed the most and that is your right, but it is NOT your right to make it a statement of fact, it is disputed. I have tried to be reasonable in my outlook of that belief and re-worded it, but some would appear to be intransigent on keeping a disputed point listed as fact. Opinions and beliefs are not facts and don't belong on Wikipedia, it does the encyclopedia a dis-service to let it remain. Amstacey 21:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No offence intended, but you just do not seem to realise that there were other contributing factors to the situation that cannot and should not be ignored.
 * Then state them, instead of starting an edit war! -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Try reading my post before the last one! Amstacey 21:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about this? From a programe I watched on the history channel recently, Stalin had promised two Generals that the first to Berlin would be considered the "winner" and be accorded the accolade of being "recognised" as being the General that defeated the Germans on the Eastern front.???
 * I'm sorry, but a TV program is not a reliable reference... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, here to save you scrolling back to the right paragraph, here it is, reproduce for your benefit, "The British defeated Rommel at El Alamein before the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad, that would have had an effect on German morale. Then the allies attacked Italy, opening up a front there and the Germans had to help the Italians.  That was followed by the Invasion of Normandy, yet another front, preventing Hitler from sending reinforcements to the Eastern front and all the while, the Allies are bombing Germany, hampering their war effort in manufacturing weapons and supplies. "

As for minimising the lend lease effort, read the preface to this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0739107364/102-1825589-1226503?v=glance&n=283155 Then there is this; "Additionally, the USSR received lend-lease aid, mostly from the United States, valued at over $11 billion. Among the more significant items were 409,526 trucks, 12,161 tanks and self-propelled guns, 14,000 airplanes, and 325,784 tons of explosives. Furthermore, the Soviet Union was able to commit more than 90 percent of its military strength against Germany, while the Germans were forced to retain a large part of theirs (35 to 45 percent in the years 1943 and 1944) in other theaters.

Earl F. Ziemke Historian, Office of the Chief of Military History Department of the Army" taken from http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_6.html (scroll to the very bottom) I read elsewhere that the Americans provided some 60% of the trucks used to mobilise Russian forces. So the lend lease should not be belittled.  How would Russia have mobilised it's forces without lend lease and don't forget the aircraft.  There are just too many other contributing factors to make the statement Russia did the most Amstacey 22:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * El Alamein? Have an effect on German morale? Don't make me laugh. Stalingrad had an effect on German morale (with three days of mourning and so on).
 * Normandy? Yes, the Allies (finally) opened that second front Stalin was demanding since 1942. However, you will notice that by June 1944, German situation was already quite hopeless.
 * As for the lend-lease, two things. First, if you think USSR would lose without trucks, explosives and so on, dream on. Second, lend-lease was paid back by the URSS. Who gives a d*** where a country gets its equipment. Germany bought ore from Sweden, USA bought raw materials from South America and so on. That's called international trade. By no means it can be used to gauge a contribution to German defeat.
 * So, we're left with the only possible way of measuring that: military power. The largest land battle ever fought by American and English forces during WWII (Battle of the Bulge) mobilized ~300,000 men on both sides. Kursk mobilized more than 2,000,000, 4M for Dnieper and so on. And the number of German troops chewed up by URSS forces is far more important. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 First, if you think USSR would lose without trucks, explosives and so on, dream on. You are free to provide study that without logistics, explosive materials USSR would win the war. --Molobo 23:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Without USA the SU wouldn't be able to win this battles. Hundreds of thousands of trucks, aviation fuel, food etc. --Molobo 23:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Trucks! Right. That's why Soviets won. Any other reasons? --Irpen 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

They walked their foot soldiers directly through mine fields.
 * This statement is at the very least unsourced and cannot be proved anyway (or would be a historical "if"). The fact that URSS destroyed the most part of German military power can be proved. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

''That's why Soviets won. Any other reasons?'' Thank you for agreeing that Soviets won because of USA's help. The fact that URSS destroyed the most part of German military power can be proved It can be shown how many were killed by Soviet soldiers. But it doesn't equal the most contribution to war. Without American trucks, food, fuel etc Soviets would hardly won. As it is the Soviets who contributed to Germany's strenght in years 1939-1941 it can hardly be said they contributed the most to its defeat. In fact out of all other countries they contributed most to German victories. --Molobo 23:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Molobo, don't expect to be fed anymore. Enough for now. --Irpen 00:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember also that in WWI Germany suffered from naval blockade that brought it on the knees. That blockade was impossible in WW2. There is in fact a German war propaganda poster from 1940 showing lines of supplies from SU with the statements with Soviets we are unbeatable Britain or something like that :) So I would be carefull with the contribution thing. --Molobo 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The defeat of the Germans at Stalingrad followed very shortly AFTER El Alamein, the first SERIOUS defeat of German troops by the Allies. Who are you to say it didn't affect the German morale. I'm not saying it did, just that the fall of Stalingrad was surprisingly soon after so it may have done. As for belittling the lend lease effort of the USA, I think that is rather unfair on the efforts made. Sure the USA made a great deal out of it financially, but the aid should not be dismissed. Just how would Russia have been able to mobilise it's troops to the extent that it did without them? Don't forget, the provision of the equipment provided enabled the Russians to concentrate on building and making other weapons and munitions like their T34 tanks (which they did superbly well I hasten to add). You're comment, "Who gives a d*** where a country gets its equipment." says it all. You have no interest in the fact that this was a joint effort by all parties. As for the single largest land battle, well there you go again, you cannot make the decision based on one element of the war. What about the war at sea and in the air? What about the allied bombing of Germany that you so conveniently ignore? You mention Normandy, but forget Italy was before Normandy, so there were two other fronts that Germany had to effectively watch. As for paying back the lend lease, no, Russia did not pay back lend lease. They refused to pay back until around 1970 I believe. So you are showing yourself to be short of truthful knowledge. Amstacey 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction for Grafikm: Where, please, did I compare El Alamein to to the Eastern Front? Amstacey 15:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this compromise. Instead of "which contributed most to the defeat of Nazi Germany." Change it to, "which contributed immense resources to the defeat of Nazi Germany." How does that sound. It seems a lot fairer to me. Amstacey 20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be which contributed immense resources to the victory and later defeat of Nazi Germany --Molobo 09:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Molobo, that does seem more appropriate. Irpen, looking at the comments of your last edit, you have to stop looking at single aspects of the war and look at it as a whole. The phrase "did the most" is demeaning and insulting to all the other countries that did their part. Until you come to realise that and become of the ability to monitor Wikipedia in an unbiased and objective viewpoint, you really should not be moderating on this board. It is arguable that Russia only defeated the Germans on the Eastern Front, not by tactical strength, but by sheer weight of numbers. Amstacey 12:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, talking about URSS contributing to German victory is absurd. True, there was Molotov-Ribentropp pact and things like that. But on the other hand, Western countries invested a lot of money in Germany and helped them to get their war industry off the ground. Not to mention the fact that occupied western countries actively collaborated with Germany and even sent some forces to fight on the Eastern front (as did Hungary or Romania for instance). Yes, just about everyone (starting from English) screwed up and failed to anticipate what would come next. But that does not mean URSS gets the full responsability of it. Yet, if I look at corresponding articles, I do not seem to find all these. Consequently, what we have here is a double standard.
 * Second, your point of view on "sheer weight of numbers" is going back to Cold War, and is not confirmed by modern sources. In all military books, casualties of up to 3 to 1 during an offensive operation against a heavily entrenched enemy are considered acceptable. And in a few occasions, it was even lower than that (Consider operation Bagration, for instance).
 * Yes, in the beginning of the war it was a total mess-up, with all the consequences resulting from it. But by late 1942, casualties on both sides were quite even, with only slightly more Soviet casualties (Stalingrad and Kursk are typical examples). Sure, when you have to storm a defensive ring (like in Dnieper campaign), you're kinda expected to have heavier casualties than the enemy. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  12:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm, please make it clear who you are responding to. I have said nothing about Russia assisting the Germans. As for sheer weight of numbers, I still stand by that comment. Any other country that lost so many men in the first onslought would almost certainly have had to capitulate, but Russia was able to draw on a huge population, so sheer weight of numbers still stands. Also, why remove the dispute notice, the dispute is not resolved! You also refer to the largest "land battle," no disagreement with that statement, so perhaps the statement should be changed to one I used earlier, stating that! Also, please stop commenting "(revert POV-pushing)" I am not stating a point of view but a fact that the war was won due to a joint effort on behalf of ALL the allies. It is RUSSIAN nationalistic, subjective and biased opinion that is a point of view. Amstacey 21:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

True reasons
OK, let's try to find a compromise about all this.

I finally took the time to reread Zhukov's memoirs and a few additionnal sources and it's actually pretty clear. I expanded that part and added the quote from Zhukov's memoirs:

You will note it is a quote so what I (or, as the matter of fact, anybody) think of it does not matter. That's what Stalin thought, and that's why he was infuriated and insisted on organizing another ceremony in Berlin.

Hope that will end the edit war... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  12:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That settles it for me - thank you! That makes it clear that it was Stalin's opinion, which was never doubted.Amstacey 12:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Victoryday.JPG
Image:Victoryday.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

War contribution assertion
The phrase "which contributed most to the defeat of Nazi Germany" is a very simplisitic assertion about a complex war. Saying "it's obvious" is clearly not an effective argument. I move that the phrase is removed in that the assertion cannot be (and is not) supported. This is not because of "truth" in one direction or the other, but because it so overly broad and simplistic an assertion that it is impossible to assign truth. Furthermore it is not essential to the foundation of the article. If one wants to make a judgement about the subject of "who contributed most" they can do so by reading available material about the war and drawing their own conculsion. They may very well come to that very conclusion, but it is not for this article nor any other to assert such a thing.

(Almost)No one doubts the immense sacrifices made by the people of the Soviet Union during WWII. The suggested removal of this assertion is not meant to disacknowledge those sacrifices. Rather it is meant to avoid a simple conclusion where a simple conculsion is inappropriate.
 * Andy 06:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point Andy, I agree entirely. Amstacey 13:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What's more is that I'm not so sure URSS wanted Germany to sign a specific surrender because of contributions or something.

In Reims, the guy who signed the protocol was IIRC general Susloparov (who in fact did not have the power to sign it). He signed it anyway, but insisted that this protocol would be considered as preliminary.

So when Stalin found it out, he insisted that a second capitulation should be signed, so this time Germany would surrender to someone representing Soviet High Command (i.e. Zhukov).

I'm quoting from memory (don't have books with me atm), but I think we have to check this. If it's true, this section should be reworded rather than fought for... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  18:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There were two Generals in the race to Berlin and Stalin had told them that the winner would be the one accredited with defeating the Germans on the eastern front. It was Zhukov's men that reached and took the Reichstag, hence the reason why he had to witness and sign the surrender document. Amstacey 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I'm quite sure that the first one was only preliminary because the guy did not have the required powers. I'll try to dig it up... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  19:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I must make it clear that my objection is not related to *specific* facts about the war. I Rather my objection is to asserting a simple concusion to a complex situation, and specificially in a side note of a tangential article to WWII/Great Patriotic War. That stated, I dont think the assertion should exist modified or otherwise.
 * Andy 20:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally Andy, in hindsight, your view is more accurate than mine. Amstacey 20:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how the article has been changed again, with the words referring to Europe removed, I have deleted the entire bit about contributing the most to the defeat of Germany. Andy is absolutely correct, as per his opening paragraph above. Amstacey 13:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement about contribution is needed to explain Soviet insisting, I rephrased it, but some better word should be picked instead of "according to...", I couldn't find it. --Yms 18:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

From a programe I watched on the history channel recently, Stalin had promised two Generals that the first to Berlin would be considered the "winner" and be accorded the accolade of being "recognised" as being the General that defeated the Germans on the Eastern front. This is far more likely to be the reason for insisting on another surrender, in order that General Zhukov gets his name on the surrender document as the "winning" general, NOT as the country that did the most! Amstacey 22:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

addendum to the above; I would have been happy to accept the subtle change in wording, however, someone else appears not to wish to compromise, so I have reverted it back yet again.

Сучары бля переписчики истории герои нах! Переписывайте историю сколько угодно но мы-то знаем правду о Победе! Nealus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.204.40 (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be renamed ?
To Victory Day (Soviet) ? It was celebrated outside Eastern Europe region by Soviet Union parts in Asia, and its main basis was Soviet one not geographic. Also since regaining independence from Soviet occupation not many countries in the region celebrate the victory of Soviets over Nazi's. --Molobo 02:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well (extremely belated answer), Victory Day (Soviet) or, better, Soviet Victory Day would appear to be much more appropriate titles. One can then indicate in the article which countries in central and eastern Europe official celebrate the 9th instead of the 8th. "(Eastern Europe)" indicates a universality of celebration across all Eastern Europe which is not practiced. That the title does not allude to the Soviet Union at all is, frankly, a misrepresentation by omission of this date. —PētersV (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rename
I believe Soviet Victory Day is the appropriate title for this article. —PētersV (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm modifying my proposal to suggest a rename to Victory Day (May 9th). —PētersV (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * After further discussion, I believe Victory Day (Eastern Front) is factual without making implications about celebration. —PētersV (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So, I've only directly moved an article, anyone have the requesting a move template handy (or a pointer)? I did look and found everything except... —PētersV (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Celebration /Observation
So we don't get into mini revert wars, perhaps "Observation" as a title and the specific list of countries in which it's a state holiday? —PētersV (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. It is a CELEBRATION in Russia, GB, US, etc. etc. of Victory over Nazis. Create your own POV article about May 9 in Baltic states and observe whatever you want. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, how about the list of countries (including citations) where it's an official state CELEBRATION ? —PētersV (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, until the title of this article remains 'Victory Day (Eastern Europe)' all Eastern European POV-s including Baltic etc. should be cited in the article according to NPOV policies. It is my opinion that it shouldn't be necessary, meaning making a whole section out of this article citing who exactly in Eastern Europe doesn't follow the Moscow calendar and therefor the article should be renamed ASAP to avoid this kind of collision of POV-s here. --Termer (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears we're definitely all in agreement to rename the article. I do firmly believe it would be useful to indicate which countries observe (oops, celebrate) it as an official holiday. I think enough editors of "diverse" POVs have indicated that Victory Day (Eastern Front) is acceptable. If there aren't any objections (please indicate below if there is a reason under which you cannot support the proposed rename under any circumstance), I'll go ahead and move the article tomorrow. I agree and am hopeful that changing the title will address the bickering over glory versus subjugation. As I've said, I support portraying Victory Day as what it was for whom it was (and still is). —PētersV (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose-the proposal Eastern Front would sort of 'smuggle' suggestion that is celebrated in countries of Eastern Front. Let's just rename it Victory Day(9th Day). Or we can search how scholary sources name it in general-I guess Soviet.--Molobo (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Victory Day (9th May) is clear and unambiguous, and okay with me. Finland formed part of the Eastern Front, do they celebrate Victory Day on May 9th too? Martintg (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I propose a request for move to be made with Victory 9th May as proposed new title. We will see if there is a consensus among Wikipedians.--Molobo (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am fine with either Victory Day (Eastern Front) or Victory Day (May 9th). Both address the Eastern European problem. How do we want to handle the two alternate names? —PētersV (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems the consensus is growing around Victory day May 9th as the more neutral in description. Eastern Front includes countries like Poland or Finland which do not celebrate Soviet victory. --Molobo (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no and can't be such "consensus". Title should explain what Victory (of which war) this is about. Finland cannot celebrate "victory" as it fought on the other side in this war. I am not aware that the Pole's would have preferred the war ending the other way. They may choose to not celebrate it. This is not the Wikipedia's (or our) business. --Irpen 23:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Irpen, let me just remind you that consensus doesn't mean 100 % support by Wikipedians. Your views are known to majority of society here, however you can't expect a single voice of yours to be a liberum veto of Wikipedia. As to celebrations in Poland, they are on the date Polish state won-8th May together with rest of the Allies it fought with. Of course it isn't a big celebration since the end of genocide by Nazi Germany was only turned to occupation and political terror by Soviet Russia.PS:I assure you Poles would prefer the war ending other way and no Soviet rapes, plunder and terror as well as economical exploitation. Plenty of chances for that with both Nazis and Soviet exhausting themselfs to collapse point if war would went other way. But that is a topic not for this place.--Molobo (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Vecrumba, so much for your hopes of a normal discussion. See above. --Irpen 23:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Irpen, wasn't it you who started this by saying you can't imagine Poles wishing anything other then Soviet victory. Perhaps indeed it would be better to stick to the point. Most editors support May 9th. I suggest that one of them starts of Request for move and we will go on from that. You can ask me about Polish views on Soviet occupation by email if you are interested ok ? Best regards.--Molobo (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems it's either
 * Victory Day (May 9th) is the day which marks Nazi Germany's capitulation on the Eastern Front to the forces of the Soviet Union....
 * or
 * Victory Day (Eastern Front) is...
 * I, for one, would be satisfied to simply then leave article discussion as a recounting of the events of the capitulation, plus "Celebration" and the one-sentence "Controversy" and not use this as yet another venue to argue liberation versus subjugation and if you don't honor the Soviet Victory you are anti-anti-facist ad infinitum. —PētersV (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That the Eastern Front passed through the countries of Eastern Europe doesn't imply anything about those countries' sentiments on said passage as long as the article stays clear of the whole liberation topic, so I'm fine with either title. —PētersV (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

About May 8 or 9
On May 8. and 9. I was in one of the cities "liberated from Germany", which are now Poland. In the whole town, I saw on May 8. one Polish flag and on May 9. I saw a door with a Polish flag on each side, no signs of celebration on TV. Can therefore say, it is practically not celebrated by Poles.

The TV news however showed, that for the first time again after many years heavy-duty Military-Parade-Celebration was going on in Moscow. An Observer 07.06.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.69.190 (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Polish flags on May 8 were probably leftovers from May 3 - the Constitution Day. Space Cadet (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

George Ribbon
Wrong picture George Ribbon.George Ribbon have three black strips.
 * Removed as dubious and unreferenced. - Altenmann >t 22:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania vs. Estonian Latvian, Lithuanian SSR-s
Someone keeps mixing up Estonia Latvia And Lithuania with the Soviet republics. Please note that the only official representation of those countries during the given period 1947-1989 were the embassies in NY, US and those never had any May9 Victory days in their calenders. Therefore I need to remove those entries from this article. Unless someone wants to say that May 9 was celebrated officially in the Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian Soviet republics, please feel free to point it out. To suggest however that May 9th was celebrated officially in the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian embassies abroad between 1947-1989 is simply too far out.--Termer (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Latvia is not the same as Latvian SSR. - Altenmann >t 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From late 1947 - 48 up to 1990 all three republics (which later became countries with distinctive parliaments) were imposed May 9 official celebration by the USSR. They had to adopt the holiday and had to officially celebrate it, in spite of the fact that neither of the republics really took place in any War actions and none were known to be against the Nazis. In fact, Estonia surrendered to the Nazi site right after Finlandia did and informally they took both countries hostile. However, on papers, Tallinn never surrendered because none of the USSR republics had the right to do so, even if it was evident.
 * Therefore the Baltics were imposed to have this holiday up until the end of USSR. Only then had they resigned from the celebration and rejected May 9. This has to be pointed out in the article, because in fact this article should be about how original May 9 was celebrated throughout the USSR since 1946 and what other states also celebrated it. Then, a section could be added which would say that today only twelve ex-republics still celebrate it.Shadiac (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:ShadiacFrom late 1947 - 48 up to 1990 all three republics (which later became countries with distinctive parliaments)

Again, the official representations, the embassies of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania abroad from late 1947-48 up to 1990 were never imposed anything by the USSR. As those countries were considered occupied countries (unlike the rest of the Soviet republics) by the USSR and the pre-WWII embassies of the Baltic countries remained open in the US etc.. The Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that "had to adopt the holiday and had to officially celebrate it" are a separate issue from the independent republics that became countries with distinctive parliaments in the aftermath of WWI in 1918-1920.--Termer (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

About "read my lips" edit summaries
Beatle Fab Four, the Baltic States are mentioned in addition to Eastern Block countries because the Baltic States were never countries of the Eastern Bloc. They are also the only countries pre-emptively invaded and annexed by the Soviet Union, and therefore a special case. I hope that is clear enough. If there's something that is not factual in what I've stated, please let me know. Perhaps you might work on expanding the celebration section? That seems rather paltry at the moment. (Non-celebration should go into a separate section, as I've already indicated, so we stop this pointless arguing.) —PētersV (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, sorry PētersV but I really think that mentioning the countries that do not celebrate the May 9th as a Victory Day is very irrelevant in this article. I hope that you could see the same if you'd take a step back. --Termer (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why I had earlier suggested a simple "Controversy" section with a single sentence (also suggested) saying not all observe so that the "Celebration" section can focus on positives. —PētersV (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just don't see any controversy in the fact that each country honors their war victims during their victory-, memorial- etc. days. The May 9th Victory Day is the same for Russians as Memorial Day is for Americans I think. In that sense the word "celebration" doesn't even fit in really in my opinion. --Termer (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a controversy. After all, if the U.S. had annexed Europe and deported large percentages of its population to the Alaskan tundra and ruled via fraudulently installed puppet administrations for half a century, Europe would not look kindly on commemorating the U.S. led victory over Nazism on the Western front on May 8th. As I've indicated, I'm content to make a note in a separate section away from Celebration/Commemoration, with the once sentence I suggested. (I do agree with the below that "Commemoration" is a more fitting word.) —PētersV (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, an alternative to the term "celebration", you might consider using the term "commemoration". That is the word used to describe the ceremonies related to Remembrance Day, the day set aside in most Commonwealth countries to remember their war losses. Risker (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not stick to a direct translation from Russian? 'Victory Day in the Great Patriotic War'. Not only is it linguistically accurate, it conveys some of the purpose of the day, which is far beyond commemoration. (134.219.103.17 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)MVRA)

Beatle Fab Four vs. Vecrumba&Digwuren
Well, sorry Vecrumba&Digwuren but I think you have got carried away with this one and I have to admit, I completely agree with Beatle Fab Four, such statements  are irrelevant in the article. It would be only relevant if the Baltic states would be legal successor states of the Soviet Baltic Republics. But the fact is, they are not, and in fact the Baltic stats never have celebrated any Victory Day (May 9). The only legal representatives of the Baltic states (consulates in NY etc.) always celebrated May 8. Therefore it would be nonsense to say that "Baltic states switched to recognizing Victory in Europe Day". The bottom line, you can't have it both ways. Either you have the Soviet Baltic Republics that became independent in 1990 and then those switched to recognizing Victory in Europe Day. Or you can have Baltic states that were occupied by the SU and after regaining independence, the May 8 tradition maintained by the representatives of the Baltic states was carried on by the governments of the independent countries, ..once the independence was regained. OK?--Termer (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is actually a very good point. Martintg (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree -- this is a good point indeed. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct, it was implied that the Baltics as SSRs celebrated the 9th, then as independent again celebrated the 8th. I don't think, though, that this is Beatle Fab Four's bone of contention. I'll improve the wording. PetersV     TALK 02:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I still completely agree with Beatle Fab Four, in case someone never celebrated any victory days on May 9. how is that relevant to the article?--Termer (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it not significant that there is a reason beyond just Western European convention that May 9th is a minority celebration? The Baltic SSRs could have continued celebrating May 9th after reestablishing independence. Poland, et al. That May 9th is not held more widely in high esteem is a direct reflection on the actions of the USSR in WWII. I have no wish to rain on the parade commemorating true sacrifices; that said, we're not here to gloss over history because the article is about a celebration on a particular day of the year. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 06:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I meant 'Day of Victory in the Great Patriotic War' (134.219.103.17 (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)MVRA)

Dates and Baltic States
Actions such as repeatedly putting in incorrect dates are vandalism, pure and simple. —PētersV (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) May 9th is NOT European Victory Day. That is May 8th. Please cease putting in the wrong date.
 * 2) The Baltic States do not celebrate Soviet Victory Day. They consider it marking reoccupation by the Soviet Union. Do not delete this.


 * Hi Alex. I'm fine with your latest edit. Yes, disclaimers need to be in the article because it is called an Eastern European celebration. I believe the appropriate longer term course is to renamed the article to "Soviet Victory Day" and as part of that to list which countries (former Soviet republics and former Warsaw Pact) officially observe May 8th to celebrate victory in Europe, and which do not (and why), in which case the whole Baltic issue is just another notation in a list. This would be much more informative than leaving readers guessing about who celebrates May 9th or not and why. —PētersV (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am seconding the suggestion to rename the article to Soviet Victory Day or Victory Day (Soviet). Mukadderat (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am thirding it. 82.131.26.47 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Soviet Victory Day seems like the most accurate for the article, current title Victory Day (Eastern Europe) doesn't make any sense since the Victory Day for Eastern Europe was either the day 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt failed or when the Berlin Wall fell.--Termer (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to rename just Victory Day (May 9) or Victory Day (Eastern Front). I am strongly oppose to renaming it Soviet Victory Day because it is a public holiday in Russia, Belarus and other countries that are not Soviet Union. I also suggest to split the story of which day Baltics prefer to celebrate into a separate article. There is a long story here and it is WP:UNDUE here Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They inherited the day from Soviet Union and it marks a Soviet victory It's Soviet Victory Day. 82.131.26.47 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have moved to content of the section to the Victory Day in Baltic States. Please continue developing this info there Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Soviet Victory Day would have been a nice and clean title I think, after all it was a Soviet victory that's also celebrated nowadays in Russia and Belarus etc. But since you Alex Bakharev don't like it, it's out I guess. I don't have any better suggestions at this time. I agree that the section about Baltic states was a bit far out as is the new article. The whole point of this Victory Day in Baltic States seems to be that the countries don't officially celebrate May 9th but Russian minorities do. It might be just me but it seems more like a political essay rather than an entry from an encyclopedia. if it was up to me I'd get rid of it all together.--Termer (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You cant do it, it's POVFORK. You have split the article by opinions of the day.
 * The new title is not correct too. Estonia has another Victory Day, the Vöidupüha. 82.131.24.88 (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed it for you Now Victory Day in Baltic States is a redirect to Victory Day and cut off the offtopic quote of Freiberga. 82.131.24.88 (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the renaming as proposed by Mukadderat. I don't believe any of the former Soviet satellites (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc.) celebrate this day yet they are often counted amongst the EE countries.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody is repeated inserting "territorial integrity" into article to whitewash the occupations. Where should extremist nationalist ideas on wiki report? 82.131.24.88 (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.24.88 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as we don't do the "territorial integrity" line, I'm fine with the short version of the disclaimer that the Baltics don't celebrate Victory Day, the article is about Soviet Victory Day itself, not "Eastern European Perceptions of Soviet Victory Day." That said, if we are to not weigh down the article with Baltic and Eastern views to the contrary of glorious victory over fascism, then the title really does need to change to "Soviet Victory Day." The title as stands implies it is uniformly celebrated across all of Eastern Europe (usually taken to include the Baltics). Uniform celebration is not the case. I would request that editors consider my suggestion to rename to "Soviet Victory Day." The additional material regarding the Baltics which I most recently added after the previous text was deleted as WP:OR and unreferenced can easily find its way into other articles about the Baltics States. Question to Irpen, would you support such a rename? Since we appear to represent opposite ends of the spectrum, if we can agree, that could be a positive step forward to keep the article focused on Victory Day (a goal I am not unsupportive of) and not on the controversies that surround Victory Day where the Baltics and Eastern Europe are concerned. —PētersV (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I won't support such a rename. This day is one of the most venerated holidays in post-Soviet countries. In my native Ukraine (which is not Soviet in any way now) this is one of the few days that remains holy and almost universally respected outside of the fringe minority of extremists. --Irpen 19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Here      are the pictures for your education. While all six pics are modern, the last three are especially applicable to this discussion. --Irpen 19:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, and I'll remove the double negative, I have no issue with an article which deals with Victory Day, May 9th, in a positive manner. My issue is that the current title implies universal celebration across Eastern Europe/the Baltics.
 * To the Ukraine, Stalin's preemptive invasion of Poland (eventually annexing Ukrainian-majority territories into the Ukrainian SSR's post-war boundaries) can be seen as a uniting force, with collective memory being that the first true taste of the horrors of war came at the hands of the invading Nazi German army (and completely true for the portion of today's Ukraine which was already part of the USSR). I'm in no way denigrating the memory of Victory Day for those for whom WWII started with an invasion by the Nazis and ended with the Soviet/Allied defeat of Nazi Germany. For those invaded first by the Soviets, and those coerced into the Soviet sphere, the story is different.
 * If "Soviet Victory Day" is not acceptable, perhaps, simply Victory Day (May 9) or Victory Day (May 9th)? —PētersV (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. To Irpen, your own veneration of May 9th on your user page did not go unnoticed. I respect what it means to you, but you also need to respect what it means to me. Without either of us putting "quotes" around the words "victory" or "occupation." —PētersV (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference though. Victory, is a fact. Soviet retaking control of the Baltics is also a fact. Framing is as "occupation" (or "liberation") is a POV. Notable POVs belong to WP all right but in the proper way. Best for this is the article I long proposed that you spin off ot the multiple forks and title Soviet Occupation of Baltic States (term). All the arguments from all sides in the referenced form would go there and the article would be linked, rather than forked in multiple articles.

As for this article, May 9th signifies the total defeat of Nazi Germany at the Eastern Front. So, Victory Day (Eastern Front) would be an OK title, IMO. --Irpen 22:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We'll leave discussion of it's all POV re: Baltic occupation for another time. I have some reservations, but Victory Day (Eastern Front) is a title I can live with. Updating proposal... —PētersV (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support for removal of Eastern Europe from the title. Majority of countries in Eastern Europe do not hold this day. --Molobo (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also fine with Eastern Front instead of Eastern Europe. What about Victory Day (Soviet Union) or just Victory Day (Soviet)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Irpen was quite adamant that the Soviet Union is dead, it's the victory that is (still) celebrated and human toll that is commemorated and there's nothing "Soviet" about it. (As mentioned, for those first invaded by the USSR or later subjugated by the USSR against their will, "mileage varies.") Hence empire-agnostic "Eastern Front." It would appear that editors who otherwise often find themselves on opposite sides have come to a consensus--sentiments on needing a move request template, poll, et al. or are we good to go for Victory Day (Eastern Front)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs)


 * It's an official holiday in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, Montenegro, Georgia. Unofficilaly celebrated in all Eastern European countries. Name VD(Eastern Europe) is fully justified. Case closed. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, Armenia, Moldova, Kazakhstan and Bosnia. Also, Vecrumba, I would appreciate the subjugation talk not being restarted. It's not that I have nothing to say. --Irpen 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unofficialy celebrated in all Eastern European countries ? Where did that come from ? Not many celebrate Soviet takeover of their countries. Also Georgia, Armenia and Kazakhstan are a bit of stretch to classify as part of Eastern Europe.--Molobo (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Victory Day (CIS and Serbia) Martintg (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest reading before commenting. --Irpen 20:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Irpen. You'll note that I said I support May 9th being represented appropriately for all parties. "Subjugation" is not a POV when hundreds of thousands are deported to Siberia or killed after an unprovoked invasion--and I've agreed to leave that discussion for another time. My suggestion is that after the article rename, the "Celebration" section be expanded with the officially observing list of countries (thanks Beatle Fab Four, refs will be needed), pictures (such as the ones you posted), some representative news accounts from this year's most recent celebration, etc. To handle the non-celebrants, I would respectfully suggest a "Controversy" section with a one-sentence paragraph which simply states: "The Baltics States, which were first invaded by the Soviet Union, and most former Warsaw Pact countries do not celebrate May 9th as the day marking victory over Nazi Germany because they consider it the start of half a century of Soviet domination."
 * Do we at least have an agreement on the rename? Thanks. —PētersV (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the most of the proposal. Especially the controversy section is much needed to explain to readers the nature of this day to most states formerly occupied by Soviets.Note that other countries besides Baltic ones also see this as their tragedy rather then end of one.--Molobo (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you mean to say that these eastern countries would have had less of a tragedy in the case that the red army had not won this war? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So how many countries actually celebrate this Soviet day still ?
So how many countries actually celebrate this Soviet day still in Eastern Europe besides Russia, Belarus and Ukraine ? Poland doesn't obviously, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia also. Slovakia doesn't as well in addition to Czech Republic. So it seems most countries in the Eastern Europe don't celebrate this day. --Molobo (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is Kazakhstan considered Eastern Europe, broadly defined? Martintg (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Kazakhstan is located in Asia, but many Europeans were forced to go there by Soviets.


 * In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Srpska celebrates May 9th officialy as a V-Day. In Federation (the other half of Bosnia and Herzegovina) it's not official, although many pay respect by visiting wwii monuments, etc. I think this should also be mentioned in the article. And the link to prove this: www.komorars.ba
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byxl (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For the last Victory Day, the 65th, french and US officers also appeared in Moscow at the parade. So the numbers of countries who celebrate this event is actually growing. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Name
I have changed the title of the article. The name Victory Day (Eastern Europe) implies that it celebrated in all the Eastern Europe that seems to be factually incorrect. There were no objections to Eastern Front and it corresponds to the text of the article devoted to capitulation of Germany on the Eastern Front Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I count several objections to Victory Day (Eastern Front). For one, most East European countries mark the capitulation of Germany on the Eastern Front on May 8th. I don't understand why you or Irpen would object to Victory Day (May 9th). Martintg (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Victory Day (former Soviet) would be the most descriptive, actually. Don't see much hope for it, though. —PētersV (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, ask Serbs whether "former Soviet" is good with them. --Irpen 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The day commemorates Germany's capitulation to the Soviet Union. Saying it's not related to "Soviet" because the Soviet Union is dead, as you've indicated, is specious at best. We can leave "former" off and back to Victory Day (Soviet). It's still the "Great Patriotic War", also a term of Soviet creation. —PētersV (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Victory Day (Eastern Front) is still misleading. I see both Irpen and Alex have yet to explain what is wrong with Victory Day (May 9th). Martintg (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with Victory Day (May 9th), in fact it was me who proposed both names. Eastern Front was supported by Vecrumba and May 9 was not supported. Both names are fine with me (in fact I would prefer May 9 as Eastern Front is not well referenced) Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of all the alternatives May 9th seems the most reasonable. There are other (annotated) Victory Days which don't say what the actually victory is either, so I see no reason editors should be offended that the victory over Nazi Germany is somehow being insulted. —PētersV (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess its not going to hurt if I'd throw my few cents in here. As a title Victory Day (Eastern Front) is quite ambiguous it seems, could mean anything. In that sense Victory Day (May 9th) is much more clear, it speaks for itself. Just that I really hate those bracketed titles, can't we really come up with anything cleaner? The May 9 Victory Day gives me about 90 returns in Google books, pick what you like the best either the first choice or May 9: Victory Day or May 9, Victory Day or May 9 - Victory Day, any of these look better than the bracketed one I think. --Termer (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I support Victory Day (May 9), since it seems that any really descriptive title will be excessively long. Mukadderat (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The correct name would IMHO be "Den Pobedy" because this clearly marks it as a russian celebration day. The respective article about the song could be renamed to "... (song)". --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)