Talk:Western Front (World War II)/Archive 2

Second Front?
Wasn't Italy the second front in the European war, thus making the Normandy Landings the start of the third front? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC) As regards to the number of German troops, this number in Italy was smaller than that in Yugoslavia. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Insufficiently large and important, I think. At least, neither Roosevelt nor Churchill considered it to be a reasonable equivalent of a Second Frond. I think, we should respect their opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't mean altering this article in any way, just a comment on the historical use of the term (as in "Second Front now!" and all that). Italy was quite a large country, and knocking her out of the War tied up hundreds of thousands of German troops that could have faced the Soviets during 1943-44. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Italy and North Africa belonged to the same theatre, i.e. the Mediterranean theatre of war. It chronologically preceded the "First" (i.e. Eastern) front, therefore, it couldn't be considered the Second Front. The Second front was something that appeared in addition to those two theatres. That is my understanding of the origin of the "Second Front" name.


 * Reference to the Second Front was surely in relation the the Western Allies? I believe the term arose because the Russians wanted them to open a "second front" in the west in order to relieve pressure on the Eastern Front. Their First front was North Africa and then sequentially Italy, second was France. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 07:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You probably are right. I never heard of the use of the "First Front" name for the Eastern Front. --Paul Siebert (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't think this reasoning is correct. As it does not explain, the argument that the RAF Bomber command offensive was a second front which would help relive the pressure on the Soviet Union, and argument that Stalin seems to have found ineffectual, but that had an effect on Albert Speer (see RAF Bomber Command). Stalin was asking for a Second Front before the invasion of Italy so that was not the Second Front. It seems to me that Second Front was used as a short hand for Second Major Front in Europe, ie the Western Front. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Counties
There is a tendency for a me to attitude to the list of countries listed in battle boxes. We do no favours to our readers by including every country in the battle box that supplied a single driver to the Western Front. We need a list of countries that make a substantial contribution to the Western Front not to the European War in general.

There is no doubting the major contributors to the campaign but we need to establish what is needed for a country to appear in the box. I would suggest that it is done on unit size. For example I know that the Kiwis had major units in Italy but did they have any major units on the Western Front? The Poles clearly made a notable contribution to the Western Front, (particularly in the Battle of France) but what contribution did the Luxembourg and Czechoslovakia make? --PBS (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The 1st Czechoslovak Armoured Brigade served in Normandy don't know of any Luxembourg units --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think a brigade enough to be in countries list battle box when some of the others are contributing 10 of thousands of men? -- PBS (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first post, it almost looks ridiculous to list countries such as Norway (as Norway is included, I ask myself, where is Denmark?), Luxembourg and Czech Republic alongside USA, United Kingdom and France (with respect to those brave men who was willing to make resitance). Maybe a solution would be to list the countries ranked by the size of their contribution? USA, United Kingdom, Free French, Poland, etc. EriFr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC).
 * What do you think if we'd split the allied nations in two groups, 1939-1940 - 1944-1945, and list them according to size inside each group?EriFr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

"...thus the last fighting germans surrendered on june 9 1945 eaxctly a year after the D-Day landings finally ending the defence of german held areas in 1945....".
I reverted the last change ("thus the last fighting germans surrendered on june 9 1945 eaxctly a year after the D-Day landings finally ending the defence of german held areas in 1945.") that seems incorrect. Firstly, I don't undedstand where the date June 9 came from. Secondly, the Normandy Landings started on June 6, 1944, not June 9. Thirdly, the attempt to overemphasize the connection between the D-Day landing and and German surrender is incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Casualty section
I suggest that the casualty section is removed. The figures do not provide much valuable information as they are today, mainly because they can not be compared, and obviously (with regard to the previous discussion) there are very few reliable sources for their replacement. Maybe the figures could be better included in the text, what do you think? /Erik EriFr (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, once again, to be clear. The figures are not accurate, the Axis figure is far from complete and it is very uncertain if the figures cited cover all those campaigns and battles linked to the "Western front" as the term used in the article. I simply do not think that the figures provide the kind of useful information that one can require from an infobox and as long as no reliable replacements can be found, I suggest that the casualty section is deleted. /Erik EriFr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC).

Listing of armies
The listing of armies in the data box is not an especially good idea -- too many units to list, for one thing. The field armies of 1940 are not listed, and the German listing for 1944-45 is incomplete. If any units are to be listed there, suggest it should only be the army groups as that will hold the list to a reasonable number of entries. W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New Casualty section in Info-box
I suggest that we once again remove the casualty figures from the Info-box. The reason is that I believe it is simply not possible for us to find figures accurate enough to give a balanced view. Let me give you examples:

The Allied casualties during 1939-1940 is quoted as 2,121,560 — 2,260,000 casualties:

- The first figures is a summarize of the casualties suffered by all Allied forces, except the total casualties suffered by Denmark, those of the Norwegian forces that were wounded or captured and those of the Dutch forced that were captured.

- The second figure contains only the casualties suffered by the French forces during the Battle of France (360,000 killed, wounded and missing and 1,900,000 captured). The casualties of the other Allied forces are not counted.

- The figure of Axis casualties during 1944-1945 represent only the casualties suffered by the Army (Heer). Those suffered by the Armed SS (Waffen SS) are not counted. Neither does the figure contain the number of men captured.

Furhter. Overmans suggest that Germany suffered 339,000 killed at the Western front until the end of 1944, this number is far from the numbers quoted in the article, what is the reason?

If we want to make things easy for us, we could let articles about battles and operations provide the reader with informaiton about the casualties on the Western front, but maybe we should start a section in this article where casualty numbers can be quoted and explained?

EriFr (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Percentage of German losses on the Western Front
I modified the second paragraph to simply note the bulk of German losses took place on the Eastern Front. The entire second paragraph needs review, but the specification of 20% of German deaths being on the Western Front is a statement that should be cited. For the interested, I consulted Overmans' work and looked at the table on page 265 of the German-language edition. Removing the deaths of prisoners of war and assigning a 33% portion (probably a bit high) of the "Final Battle" (Endkämpfe) deaths to the Western Front (Overmans estimates 2/3 of the deaths of this period took place on the Eastern Front), an estimate can be made that some 15% of German military deaths occurred on the Western Front. Not particularly suited to citation, though. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article so short?
Why is this article so short compared to the Eastern Front article? There is so much more to talk about, the bombing raids are hardly even mentioned. There are brief summaries of major events. Is this article another deliberate example of Western masochism and self hate? The Western Front was very important and this article is very inadequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.108.42 (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The importance of Western Front isn't much compared to the Eastern Front, so it would be expected. It's nothing to do with 'Western masochism and self hate.' Just compare it to the Western Front in the First World War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.50.104 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a summary style article, most sections act as an introduction to more detailed campaign or battle articles. -- PBS (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that specificity is even inconsistent within the article. I understand that in terms of length and tactics, the first phase is considerably shorter than the second, but still - the entirety of the Battles of France and the Low Countries is half a paragraph, shorter than the article's treatment of Operation Market Garden, and considerably shorter even than the introductory bit on Battle of France. That appears a bit too much (or rather, too little), even if it is a summary. Chuborno (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Map
Per the request on this talk page, a high level map of the front (for land actions) has been added. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

commanders and leaders in info box
This is getting to be a mess (again). Is it necessary to show which commands the individuals had? Should we determine an echelon at which leaders should no longer be displayed in the box (that is, only army group commanders and above)? Comments requested. If no one cares very much about it, I'll clean it up alone on/around 12 February. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree army group and above. Surprised to even see Norway there was it classed as part of the Western Front? Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question about Norway. We mention the Scandinavian Campaign in passing; is it considered a different front (theater) for article space organization purposes? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Army Group and above seems sensible. The list of countries in the infobox seems excessive - Australia should be removed, for instance, as it's peak contribution (see this article) was only about 3000 personnel. I imagine that the number of New Zealanders involved was even smaller and the number of South Africans would have been tiny. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree Army Group seems like a sensible level. The Aussies and NZers and South Africans should definitely be removed; maybe we can say 'major contributors'. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree -- the Aussies / NZers / S Africans played a major role in the Mediterranean which I assume is considered another front in terms of article space / topic organization? Even were these countries retained in the list because of ops in the Med, I would then have to wonder why India is not also listed -- they contributed a number of divisions as well. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Another question -- what about national military commanders like Leopold, Hitler, etc.? I just looked at the Eastern Front article to see if it could serve as a guide. . . er, but probably not. The number of names in their info box could just about be a list article on its own. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. National leaders left alone. Military now includes only army group commanders and higher. The partial listings of commands held and individual fates have been removed. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Was de Gaulle in operational command of French combat troops in France? -- PBS (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Philip, good to see you taking interest in this article. In reply to the question about De Gaulle and troop command, perhaps not, at least it is not clear to me what his position vis-a-vis the French Army of 1944-45 was other than being commander in chief.  He did make decisions that altered French troop dispositions during the course of the campaign.  My concern here is that France fielded a substantial force in the campaign (over 1.2 million by VE Day) and it would be an omission to list leaders without noting someone as a placeholder for that force.  I am not hung up on it being De Gaulle; perhaps in terms of military leaders, Alphonse Juin, who was the chief of staff during this period, would be a better choice.  A question for you on another personality in the table -- Lord Cork -- does he belong in the table (I'm not sure, from the article in Wiki it sounds like his most important time in the RN was behind him by the time of the Second World War).  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had an interest in this page for a long time :-) As he did not have an operational command, it is misleading to include him (as it is other politicians and non-operations senior commanders (eg George Marshal and Sir Allen Brook). A better choice would be Jean de Lattre de Tassigny who commanded the French First Army, but as we agreed we would not include army commanders ... As to the Battle of France, we can discuss this further, but the Allied list in the battle box of that article (without the Eastern leaders) would be a good start. -- PBS (talk)
 * I've removed DG from the list again. I honestly feel that not having any placeholder is misleading considering the size of the French contribution (most of which was not under the three Allied army groups). Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should take a look at the German list as well, and only include Army Group commanders in that list -- and possibly any independent army commands (if there were any) -- with the possible exception of Hitler. For example why are Himmler and Goering in the list? -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Goering should not be there, but Himmler commanded Army Group Upper Rhine for about months in late 1944 - 1945. The command tours on the German side tended to be brief, so there are a lot more names present.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And there was I thinking that Himmler had no military high command experience when he was placed in command of Army Group Vistula (infact it was less than 24 hours earlier that his previous comamnd --Upper Rhine High Command-- had been deactivated)!  -- PBS (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

About the "Hindsight" section...
I'm aware this discussion thread is already in Archives 1, and many of the points I want to make were already made there. Seemingly, that time, the original editor added references and the matter was resolved, but I think that adding references don't quite suffice - the text itself is not encyclopedic in nature, and offers only an opinion, a particular perspective. (My objection is not what the perspective is or whether I consider it to be accurate, just that it is not objective.) At the very least, I think citations need to exist within the paragraph ("[Author name] wrote/have suggested/asserts...", etc.). Chuborno (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Western Front was critical to the fall of Nazi Germany?
I would like to know the author of this assertion, because, as far as I know, some authors, such as David Glantz express the opposite opinion, namely, that the victory in the European theatre was possible even without landing in Normandy, because after the Victory at Kursk the Soviet victory over Germany became inevitable. I suggest to remove this statement from the lede as controversial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The entire paragraph is problematic. There may be something to say in that vein but if so, it needs to be presented more factually and with appropriate citations. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure citations are needed in the lede. However, the article seems to contain no sourced discussion of this issue, so, per WP:LEDE the para cannot be here. It needs to be proper referenced and moved to the article body.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In Normandy Crucible: The Decisive Battle that Shaped World War II in Europe, author John Prados point that US and British fought many crack troops in Normandy, including at least four SS panzer divisions and at least 4 other panzer divisions, while in Operation Bagration there were only two German panzer divisions defending against the Russians. The Normandy invasion caused that and resulted in the lopsided victory of the Russians over the Germans in June, 1944 including total Russian air superiority. Not to mention all other Axis units in the Western Front, Italy, who fought in Africa, stationed in Norway and others.

You people are always trying to find which front was more important, however this kind of comparison is hard to make in order to present a neutral historical view, since it was a world war were all was interconnected.

About David Glantz, I sent an e-mail to him asking just this kind of thing, here is his answer: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/a2yzq

And before someone say: I can argue the BoB or from the Atlantic were just as important than the Eastern Front. Why? Can someone prove me that the Soviets would still defeat Hitler alone if there was not a war with the West? David Glantz himself, someone who probably has more research in the Russian and German archives and WWII military history more than most of us, already told this would be by no means certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelo Jenisch (talk • contribs)
 * Glantz correctly noted (as he wrote elsewhere) that, had the USSR had to fight alone, it would be much more difficult to achieve a decisive victory (if possible at all). However, although the Soviet victory would not be obvious in that case, its theoretical possibility could not be ruled out completely. In connection to that, can anyone tell the same about the Western front? Would be a victory without the USSR possible (even theoretically)? (Please, do not use references to A-bomb, or something of that kind: obviously, without EF Hitler would make the A-bomb, as well as the intercontinental ballistic rocket, first.).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With the Soviet Union neutral or defeated? Neutral, I recommend you to read about the effects of the Allied naval blockade of Germany. Also, considerate the fact that there would no Lend-Lease for the Soviets, so all that material would be avaliable for the Allies. But frankly, I cannot see a scenario were Hitler don't want to attack the Soviets, since this would imply in a different historical logic, like Germany having a bigger navy if his goal would be fight Britain first.
 * If the Soviet Union was defeated, victory from the Western Allies could not be ruled out totally as well, as it would depend on the circunstances (and realistic circunstances, since we are aware of the deficient German logistics in the East for example).
 * RE; the atomic bomb: I will use it as reference, yes, specially because you claimed something that is not truth, there's no evidence the Germans were ever close to obtain an atomic bomb, as this article shows: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/germany/nuke.htm
 * RE: the German missiles: I would like to have evidence of the impact this would have, including when the Germans would have been capable of deploy the advanced guidance systems.
 * I recommend you to read about the American Departament of Defense Rainbow Plan 5, and Roosevelt's Victory Program. The Western Allies were capable of muster much more strenght against Germany if necessary. Of course I cannot to tell they would certainly won in such a scenario, however they would not be necessarily hopeless like you are claiming.
 * Also, you are apparently trying to make some "war of the war" here, since I just provided info that the Soviet Union ultimately needed it's Allies for the victory, and you replied with a comparison about the relative contributions of both sides, claiming the Western Allies practically did not stand a chance without the Soviets, like if you have felt offended by what I posted. I really don't understand this behaviour, specially by the fact the Western Allies took the bulk of the Japanese and Italian military, which could have bring enormous trouble to the Russians in case they could join with Hitler. But if you are just pointing the fact the Eastern Front must have a big focus in terms of histoy lesson for the Western historiography, then no problem. Marcelo Jenisch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Neutrality would not prevent economic collaboration (Sweden was a typical example). Since neutral USSR and Sweden could sell everything Germany needed, the effect of naval blockade would be minimal.
 * Re "If the Soviet Union was defeated, victory from the Western Allies could not be ruled out totally as well" good answer that explains nothing: deficient German logistics in the East was a direct result of ongoing hostilities and partisan war.
 * Re A-bomb: Werner Heisenberg explained it as follows: "Heisenberg tells how German industry was stretched to the limit in 1942. More importantly he says "the undertaking could not be initiated against the psychological background of the men responsible for the German war policy." The military leaders would not back anything that did not promise early results." (Why No Nazi Atomic Bomb The Science News-Letter, Vol. 52, No. 18 (Nov. 1, 1947), p. 276) Obviously, this stretch was a direct result of terrible situation in the East (because no other theatres created problems for Hitler during that time).
 * Re "The Western Allies were capable of muster much more strenght against Germany if necessary." Then why hadn't they done that, and forced the USSR to fight alone?
 * By no means I am offended by this your post. I simply find it illogical: according to you, since two theatres existed, then they both were equally important. That is not the case, however, and Italian or Japanese theatres had much less strategic effect than the European theatre, and especially the EF.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will present you some possibilities for a scenario where the USSR is not envolved in the war: 1) the Russians eventually join the Axis as an active partner. In that scenario, if nothing else, the vast natural resources of the USSR support the rest of the Axis economies, the vast manpower resources place the Axis in an unassailable military position. The Allies will be forced to capitulate under that scenario. 2) The Rusians start out in cahoots with the Axis, but remain neutral, suggesting the Rusians continue to follw their own foreign policy agenda. Eventually the Axis inability to pay the Russians for their resources ( as you know Axis economies were technically insolvent for most of the war, and needed the constant injection of "conquest money" to stay afloat. Without continual conquest, and the graduall pillaging of the European economies generally, and no access to international markets, the Axis economies are headed south in this scenario.

With Russia pursuing its own agenda, and gradual drift away from economic support by the Russians, there has to be a gradual buildup of tension along the eastern front. Ties down a gradually weakening Germany to a large garrison on the eastern front.....a kind of Fascist "Cold War" if you like 3) The Russians do not sign the pact with the Germans and in fact retain a collective security stance in 1939. Maybe they go to war against the germans in 1939, maybe they dont, but either way, in this scenario the German demise is going to be rapid and complete. They have no economic access, and a hostile neighbour on their eaastern border. In this scenario, I doubt if the Germans would even be abale to take out France. And if the Germans resolve to direct their total efforts to the south (Africa, Middle East), that means no U-Boat war, no blitz, no threat of invasion, no attempts at tonnage war by the surface fleet, no defences over the Reich, no defences along the Coast. Even allowing for some rationalization of that statement...ie maintaining the minimum necesary for defence in the western hemisphere, will still decrease the pressure on the brits in western europe and enable a response to be formulated. Greater committment to the South by the germans will take time to develop, because of the poor levels of infrastructure there, no involvement in the east will cause a rethink of strategic priorities for Britain. For every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. The grand offensive to the south will not achieve german access to oil, and is unlikely to achieve much more than was ever achieved historically, except with a massive and radical adjstment in German production. as soon as that is assumed, one has to also assume a similar radical and corresponding adjustment to british/allied production priorities.

Ah, and this mention:

"Italian or Japanese theatres had much less strategic effect than the European theatre, and especially the EF."

Every nation had a role and a part to play. Without Britiain in the war, the Germans and their allies are that much stronger to concentrate on the Russians, whilst the Russians are that much weaker because (I assume) there is no Lend Lease to support them. Germany can deploy an additional 1500 a/c, not to mention Italian and Japanese aircraft and military hardware in general, and their production choices no longer need to be pre-occupied with defending their home territory from air attack. Axis (specially German) production improve in overall efficiency and there are no great resource shortages because there would be no blockade if Britiain made peace. Marcelo Jenisch (talk)

Why you don't answer the arguments Siebert?

I will provide you references that support them;

Wages of Destruction, Adam Tooze, page 400:

''Germany's strategic dilemma in the summer of 1940 was not merelyhow to defeat Britain. The problem was how to neutralize Britain beforeAmerica could intervene decisively on its side. Unleashing the U-boatsagainst the Anglo-American umbilical cord was certainly the most directapproach to this problem. But it was not quick-acting and it was thestrategy that bore the highest risk of bringing down upon Germany thefull weight of American power''

Page 403 of the same book:

''Alarmed by Germany's bid to overturnthe balance of power in Europe, the Roosevelt administration, backedby a bi-partisan majority in Congress, took urgent steps to transformthe United States into the pre-eminent military superpower that itremains today. The sequence of events was rapid. On 16 May 1940,three days after Kleist's Panzer Group A had broken through on river Maas, President Roosevelt put before Congress the proposal toconstruct the world's largest military-industrial complex, a manufactur-ing base capable of supplying the United States with no less than 50,000aircraft per year. Roosevelt picked this number out of the air and itwas unclear how it would be put into practice. But he made his point.The Luftwaffe and the RAF, even in their wildest moments, had neverconceived of aircraft production on this scale. 'Fifty thousand per year'was less a planning target than a statement of American industrialsupremacy. Only a few weeks later, Congress approved the Two OceansNavy Expansion Act, which laid the foundations for the vast carrier-fleets with which the United States still projects force into every cornerof the globe. There followed over the summer the unprecedented intro-duction of a peacetime draft, designed to raise a trained force of 1.4 million men. By 1941, America, a nation still at peace, was produc-ing almost as much weaponry as either Germany or Britain and wasdoing so whilst at the same time enjoying the first sustained increase incivilian consumption since the late 1920s. What was ominous from the German point of view was that thisenormous accumulation of force was ultimately directed across theAtlantic, in support of Britain and its war against Hitler. Britain'swillingness to go on resisting Germany depended critically on theassumption that the United States would provide it with massive materialaid. At first, of course, Britain would have to pay. Britain, unlike Ger-many, was not bankrupt. In 1939 it was still a large internationalcreditor with foreign assets estimated at c. $5 billion (15-20 billionReichsmarks), enough to match an entire year of German armamentsoutput with purchases from abroad. But to defeat Germany, Britainwould clearly need far more. The premise of British strategy wastherefore, as Churchill put it to Roosevelt, that Britain would pay for asmuch as it could, but that 'when we can pay no more you will give usthe stuff all the same'. Perhaps not surprisingly, Roosevelt did not replyto this bold statement of British dependence. The tortured politics of World War I war debts were still fresh in the memory. Britain was tobe driven to the point of financial exhaustion before Congress openedthe floodgates of lend-lease in the spring of 1941. London, therefore,had every reason to be nervous. But Churchill's gamble was clearlybased on a fundamentally correct strategic assessment. Roosevelt hadhad his heart set on a major American contribution to the air effort''

Page 668:

''By any reasonable estimation, Hitler's declaration of war on theUnited States sealed the fate of Germany. The economic and militaryforces arrayed against the Third Reich by early 1942 were overwhelm-ing. As we have shown, this fatalistic view was shared by all those mostclosely involved with the management of the German war effort up tothe Moscow crisis. Udet of the Luftwaffe, Fromm of the army, Thomasof the Wehrmacht high command, Todt in the Armaments Ministry,Canaris in intelligence, Rohland and his colleagues in the Ruhr, all cameto the same conclusion. All these men had thrown in their lot. But they were not ignorant of the basic trends of earlytwentieth-century history. They were as convinced as the vast majorityof their contemporaries of the pivotal importance of the United Stateseconomy. None of them doubted that once American industrial capacitywas mobilized - and they were fully aware of the measures that hadalready been taken in 1940 and 1941 - Germany's situation would beworse than that of 1918.''

I really recommend you to read Tooze's book, as your statements about an economically powerful Germany, capable of defeat the US and Britain, clearly show that you don't understand the economic difficulties of the Nazi state, which actually lead to Operation Barbarossa.

Now about the German atomic bomb: your source is outdated, from 1947. I recommend read: The Making of the Atomic Bomb', by Richard Rhodes, or any other recent work that will show how behind Germany was in the nuclear race, with or without the Eastern Front.

So Sibert, I provided you VERY realiable sources, you can't tell me that authours like Tooze and Rhodes are "unreliable". The arguments I provided, confirmed by the references, have made the point: the Western Allies, together with the Soviets, both were were critical to the fall of Germany, and althought in a more difficult situation, there's no evidence the Western Allies would be in a hopeless situation without the Soviet Union. While perhaps the same cannot be said about the Soviets without their Allies, just like the author of the reference for this you suggested in the first post himself told me. This article is correct in the way it is and your question is answered. Marcelo Jenisch (talk)

They aren't reliable sources. Clearly, their failure to realise that Britain's war manufacturing output increased exponentially as well as the United States', making the "The RAF, not even in their wildest dreams, could ever conceive" statement incorrect and obsolete. Furthermore, the notion of the "United States intervening decisively" when the Battle of Britain has long since been won and the North Africa campaign had turned without US involvement.

82.1.73.23 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Casualties
I apologize in advance for asking what appears to be a stupid question... but are the casualties listed in casualty box just soldiers or soldiers and civilians? I'm assuming they're soldiers because in the note its mentions the consolidation at Dunkirk... but since the Western Front encompasses all of Western Europe and England and the numbers leave out the blitz, so... yeah, less of a stupid question now that I think about it. Abattoir666 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Flag ordering in the battle box
I had a look at this version from five hundred edits ago. It seems to me that the ordering then was more sensible than it is now.

I suggest that the list includes the largest contributions for the two phases of the war and that each country is only included once. That will put France first, then Britain, followed by the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Norway Luxembourg (not sure of the ordering of these five minor countries). For the second campaign the US, Canada, Free French, etc. -- PBS (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The ordering is probably best done on the number of dead as that is a fairly well known substitute for effort. -- PBS (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Would it not make the most sense to just list who contributed the most troops and materiel? Or the one that undertook the most decisive actions? Or the country that the Allies themselves considered to be in command? In all those areas, the United States should pretty clearly be listed as the first flag; they had more troops on the Western Front than every other Allied nation combined by 1944, a US general was the Supreme Allied Commander, and even many of the other Allied soldiers were relying on American logistics and using American equipment. If we're just using casualty figures, then technically France should be listed before the United States. They lost [mostly POWs] 2,000,000+ troops.--Nihlus1 (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Western Front (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070504080642/http://www.regiments.org:80/wars/20ww2/eur-nw42.htm to http://www.regiments.org/wars/20ww2/eur-nw42.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071017191531/http://canadiansoldiers.com:80/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Dieppe to http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Dieppe

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

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

Allied Casualties Section Still a disaster.
The numbers of Allied losses are imcomplete. Just look at the WW2 Casulties article. The most shocking difference its about the Canadian Losses over 10k reported in this page and the WW2 casualties article claims over 43,000 killed. Note that most Canadians served in Western Europe not the pacific. Soo, this source its only 25% of the final tally. The same for U.S losses in the breakdown by theather over 185,924 deaths in Western Front/Atlantic theather, not 100k dead. The same in a lesser degree for the British, this page claims an incomplete 30k dead and the breakdown by theather is: UK-25,195,[406] France and Belgium, 1939/40-13,167,[407] Norway-351,[408] Middle East-19,003,[409] North Africa-11,095,[410] Malta-531,[411] East Africa-465,[412] Sicily-2,816,[413] Italy-22,029,[414] Balkans and Greece, 1944/45-487,[415] Western Europe, 1944/45-36,288,[416] Malaya-11,219,[417] Burma-9,858,[418] At sea-7,260,[419]. Witch the final sum its like 60k.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. According to the sources used in the article World War II casualties, United Kingdom suffered 357,116 military dead (of which 213,685 served in the Army and the Air force) during World war II. I find it hard to believe that less than 30,280 of these were killed on the Western front 1944-1945. (Perhaps the explanation is that some of those counted as wounded were later declared dead.) However, I am fully cleat that casualty figures can only be changed in accordance with reliable source. /EriFr (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The 1944–45 campaign in hindsight section
I've just rather WP:BOLDly removed the "The 1944–45 campaign in hindsight" section. My reasons for doing so were:
 * It read like an amateur editorial rather than a serious work of history. It was focused on a narrow range of incidents, backed by a small range of sources, and didn't acknowledge the significant differences in views on this issue.
 * In particular, it was highly biased. Despite acknowledging that the Allies achieved a significant victory, the material largely attributed this to errors made by the Germans and then went into great detail on supposed mistakes made by the Allied forces which lengthened the war. That the Allies also shortened the war through many good decisions and the quality of their forces wasn't mentioned.
 * The whole thing seemed rather one-eyed. For instance, Eisenhower's decision to not attempt to capture Berlin was argued to be a mistake. However, many historians - including Max Hastings who was referenced extensively but not here - have judged that it was correct. Similarly, the material was critical of Eisenhower's emphasis on a broad front, yet historians generally consider this to have been correct. The material also implied that the Allies somehow failed in that they didn't finish the war in 1944, but again modern historians generally regard this as having been impossible given their logistical constraints and the remaining capabilities of the German forces. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of the text you removed was added by W. B. Wilson in Revision of 16:43, 21 January 2007 -- PBS (talk)
 * Your wording "but again modern historians generally regard this as having been impossible" implies that the previous views you have contradicted are supported by most modern historians. From my reading of general histories written to appear in or around the 70th anniversary of the War I do not think that by a large the views in the text you deleted are not widely supported by modern histians. While I agree that some historians have taken Hastings line most of those I have read in recent years have questioned that decision given the cold war that followed WWII. Similarly although I agree that most of the historians I have read would agree with you that the war could not have ended in 1944, they generally agree that the wide front was suboptimal, although the do not seem to agree on which army group should have got the lions share of the diverted supplies after the failure of Market Garden. Most also seem to think that not clearing the Scheldt estuary quickly was a mistake which by implication makes Market Garden a mistake rather than a gamble that did not pay off. -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Flag Order and dates
@ User:EriFr and User:Alexboy2622 I have protected this page for three days, to allow discussion on this talk page and if necessary escalation via WP:dispute resolution. Both of you read WP:3RR. I ought to block both of you but as one editor is new and has not been warned I will refrain. However User:EriFr you should know better.

Now both of you add a paragraph below this one explaining why your preferred version is the better one (include in those explanation any relevant policies and guidelines). -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:EriFr you changed the order back in Revision as of 22:57, 5 November 2009 with no explanation. Why is it better to put the US near the top and not in chronological order. Did you do it for weight of contribution? If so what was the correct ordering for the rest by contribution? -- PBS (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @ User:PBS I am sorry for contributing to an edit war. I travelled by train when this began, and with just a smart phone at hand (those tiny buttons…), I feared that the article would become a complete mess If I didn't try to pause the edits. I should definitely have calmed myself down, and waited until I could send a message directly to User:Alexboy2622 instead.


 * However, these are my explanations:


 * Flag order: The flag order has been discussed (the latest discussion has not yet been archived), and I believe that the order has been stable for quite some time. I suggest that the flag order follows the size of casualties (primarily number of dead), or in second hand the size of contributions in terms of manpower and materiel. None of these orderings should put United Kingdom over the United States. (However, the total military deaths by United Kingdom is a mystery to me, as I have mentioned earlier on this page. I don't understand how total military deaths by United Kingdom in World War II add up, without a higher number of deaths on the Western Front than mentioned in this article. But I don't have any sources for a higher number.)
 * Dates: Dates to participants make the info box messy, and I therefore think they should only be used when contributing with important explanations. I suggest that dates are only added to participants that changed sides during the war (see European theatre of World War II), or exceptionally for participants that only participated for a very limited time (however, such participants will naturally be put at the bottom of the order, why dates are rarely important in such cases).


 * Kindest /EriFr (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I see your second question now. I tried to do that by size of casualties. However, that was eight years ago. I probably only relied on the article World War II Casualties (and its sources) back then. /EriFr (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I find arguments for ordering by contribution in terms of manpower and material, I also find arguments for ordering by undertaking of decisive actions etc. However, all of these are difficult and have their flaws. Material and manpower without participating in active fighting? How do you quantify undertaking of decisive actions? I think order by casualties is the best. It is fairly easy to quantify, and it should generally weight contribution of manpower, undertaking of decisive actions etc. together. /EriFr (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank You, Alexboy2622 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The flag order follows the size of casualties (primarily number of dead), or in second hand the size of contributions in terms of manpower and materiel, I completely agree with @ User:EriFr but we have to understand that we are not talking about just United Kingdom it was the British Empire as well and also the support of the Commonwealth so if we see the man power or materiel is larger than the United States, and we also remind that UK was at WW II from it's beginning but the US joined from 1941 not from beginning so I suggest Flag Order that UK (British Empire) (country from the beginning of war and most man and materiel power as well) must take place first than US.
 * 2) Also the date of US(From 1941) Because we mention the soviet Union with a date (from 1941) in European theatre of World War II and we can also see in the article of World war I, We can see their a date is mention about US(1917-1918) so why not that repeat here?
 * 3) I also want to request that please erase the name Franklin D. Roosevelt from the Commanders and leaders section because that section is not for politicians so Dwight D. Eisenhower must be at the top of Commanders and leaders section as Supreme Allied Commander. I want to draw attention in this fact.
 * 1. When you write “manpower and material”, do you mean possession of manpower and material or contribution in manpower and material to the war effort? The Commonwealth was undoubtedly huge in manpower and material (in population and resources), but I think that only contribution to the war effort (and on the Western Front) should matter here. And when we decide which participant we think contributed with the most manpower and material to the war effort on the Western Front, we must consider the whole time span (unless we split the flag order into two parts). When doing that, I doubt the Commonwealth actually contributed with more manpower and material than the United States. But I don't know. See the following discussion on the topic: Talk:European theatre of World War II.
 * 2. The reason why I have added a date to the Soviet Union in the article European Theatre in World War II is because the Soviet Union appears on two sides in the info box (so that the reader can easily see when the Soviet Union participated on which side). The Soviet Union waged war against Poland and Finland (among other nations) in 1939-1940 before it fought Germany and joined the Allies. However, I don’t think it’s a big deal to add a date to the United Sates, but if we do that, we should probably add dates to France and Free France as well.
 * 3. No opinion.


 * Other comments:
 * 1. Flag order: I am open to using a different order, than by casualties or contribution in manpower and material. Particularly for the type of conflicts that started as a conflict between two parties, and where other parties later joined one of the main parties. In such cases, I think the main parties should be listed at the top, and the rest could be listed in chronological order, as that would show the development of the conflict. However, I am not sure if I see the Western Front as that type of conflict. And if we use chronological order, where should we put Poland? Top or in fifth place? (Poland was the first nation to enter a state of war with Germany, and probably the fifth nation to fight Germany on the Western Front after France, United Kingdom, Denmark and Norway). I think I still prefer order by casualties for this info box, but maybe, we should split the flag order into two sections, 1939-1940 and 1944-1945, as have been mentioned in earlier discussions on this page?
 * 2. The Commonwealth: I don’t really know how the Commonwealth worked as of 1939. I could be open to treating the Commonwealth as a unit, but I don’t know if that would be correct.


 * Kindest /EriFr (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, User:Alexboy2622. I see that you have just changed the flag order in the article European Theatre in World War II. You have now put the United Kingdom (and the Commonwealth) above the Soviet Union. I would very much like to discuss this and will start a discussion at the talk page. I would be happy if you explained your views at the talk page (see link above)! Kindest /EriFr (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you have already started a discussion! Great initiative, I will answer. Thank you. /EriFr (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is a mess
Nominally per lede and infobox this article claims to cover western front from 1939-1945. In practice it does completely subpar job on it, 1939-1940 is treated like a background section, with Battle of France covered by 2 sentences. Additionally I feel that there really should be a dedicated article for Western front 1944-1945 which we don't really have at the moment, doing a serious disservice to readers. That said, I am unsure whether this article should be simply converted into 1944-1945 campaign article, or should finer details of "1944–1945: The Second Front" section split into separate article, while turning this into more general theatre article like for example Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II. That said, we already have European theatre of World War II, so I don't really think another general article just for France, Benelux, and Scandinavia is warranted.--Staberinde (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. This article lacks some common features that should be mentioned. ShauryaOMG (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Did the subject of this article exist as an administrative entity?
I have been looking at Roland Ruppenthal's, The European Theater of Operations, Logistical Support of the Armies, Volumes I and II. This talks about the European Theater of Operations United States Army (ETOUSA), though the normal abbreviation for it is ETO. ETO came into being on 8 June 1942 (source: vol I, page 13). ETO included Corsica (because it was part of France), but not Italy. Italy was in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations.

I have not seen mention in Ruppenthal's two volumes of an organisation called the "Western Front". When this article says The Western Front was a military theatre of World War II, from the American Army's point of view that is wrong. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the common term for the topic, in part as the US Army didn't fight the war by its own ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Soviet involvement in liberating Norway
Now so far I see no discussions about this on the talk page. How is it the German campaign in Norway during is considered apart of the Western Front. But the Soviet Union's liberation of the Finnmark region in Norway from 1944 to 1945 isn't considered apart of the Western Front let alone mentioned. I believe the Soviets should be listed in the belligerent section on the Allied side, at least in the same way Vichy France is listed on Axis side with a citation of their involvement in liberating a major part of Norway. TwoNyce (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is it I get ignored constantly on this topic? TwoNyce (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This article should be split into two topics
It is silly to deal with the 1939-40 campaign and the 1944-45 campaign in a single article. Moreover there is no evidence that reliable sources treat these as a single campaign so this article is therefore WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)