Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:37, 22 September 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / Balkan / European / German / Italian / Polish / Russian & Soviet / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force German military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) Polish military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Eastern Front page were merged into Eastern Front (World War II). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

30 million died?

"The Eastern Front was by far the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II. It is generally accepted as being the deadliest conflict in human history, with over 30 million killed as a result"

I have never seen such high estimates before. Is there i source to suppoert the quote? --Lindberg47 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, civilian casualties are also included into this number. For sources, you can look at the World War II casualties. All numbers there have been meticulously verified. You can find the sources there.
As regards to military losses, Krivosheev's book (G. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7, online version is available in Russian only ) is quite a reliable source for the USSR, although it contains some numbers for the Axis countries: Hungary, Romania, Finland (not officially the Axis member), Italy and Slovakia sustained 1,468,145 irrecoverable losses (668,163 KIA/MIA), Germany - 7,181,100 (3,604,800 KIA/MIA) + 579,900 PoWs died in Soviet captivity. It worths mentioning, however that a considerable part German losses during 1945 is hard to attribute to Eastern or Wesrent front. Nevertheless, taking into account that more than a half of German troops fought in the East even by the very end of the war, the numbers look reasonable, and some Western sources (e.g. Glantz) give even larger losses. So we have about 4.8 million Axis losses in the East during the period of 1941-1945. This is more than a half of all Axis losses (including Asia/Pacific theatre).
As regards to the Allied losses, this question is more or less clear: the USSR sustained 10.5 million military losses (including PoWs died in German captivity), so only military losses (the Axis + the USSR) amount to 15 million, far greater than in all other theatres. The numbers of civilian losses (with references) can be found in the World War II casualties.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Croatia?

Some people reading the main box would think that Croatia was involved in the invasion of the Soviet Union, but as far as we know the Independent State of Croatia was a relatively fragile puppet state of main Axis Powers (Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) which occupied the former Yugoslav Kingdom region with their troops. So, the Independent State of Croatia had no proper army or defence forces itself, and so it did not participate of the Eastern Front during the attack on the Soviet Union.--BalkanWalker (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you change the current Croatia to exactly what was the puppet state called. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should be better to eliminiate the I.S. of Croatia icon-flag, since it did not participate in the military invasion of the Soviet Union.--BalkanWalker (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's necessary to provide a source which lists the forces which attacked the Soviet Union. --Erikupoeg (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the main historians agree that the I.S. of Croatia did not attack the Soviet Union directly. Until we have solid, written references about Croatian troops attacks on the Soviet Union, the flag of I.S. of Croatia must be excluded from the infobox.--BalkanWalker (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

At least one Croatian regiment (under Croatian flag) participated in the Battle of Stalingrad Of course, their role was not significant, but their contribution was at least comparable with that of Cuba or Brasil (the Allies).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So why don't you add it? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate Sovet victory?

What exactly does this mean? Was there a problem with "Decisive Soviet victory"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.186.81 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I also see no problem with "decisive". During the final stages of the war Soviet superiority was really decisive, as well as the victory. By contrast, "ultimate" is tautology, because any result is "ultimate". --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Axis-Soviet War

User:Shatteredwikiglass has been attempting to state that the term "Axis-Soviet War" is the most common and accurate term for the Eastern Front, but has not supplied any evidence. Does anyone have any evidence for this term allegedly being the 'most common'? Skinny87 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Am away from my limited sources on the Second World War's Eastern Front however a quick look through 2 pages of Google hits show the term only linking back to this article. I think you should also take a look at the template and dicussion page Template:Campaignbox Axis-Soviet War.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Er...how about you gentlemen think encyclopedically? This was a war between a coalition on the one side, and a state on the other. These are facts of history even if not reflected by Google hits. Wha evidence would an aspiring MA in History need? ;)--121.218.70.139 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the title Eastern Front is less encyclopaedic than Axis-Soviet war? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

More correct definition of EF

I restored a more correct definition made by Shattered Wikiglass (and extended it), because it is incorrect to reduce the Eastern front just to the Sovier-German war. I don't think citations are needed because, according to WP policy, only challenged materials or materials likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. The fact that Italy, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland fought against the USSR is well known and no citations are required.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of German Civilians During Russian Advance

Can a section on this be added? There is a section on German atrocities but not one covering the actions against the German civilians by Soviet troops once they arrived in Germany proper - or formerly occupied areas settled by Germans. This in no way is meant to suggest that the two were equivalent (morally or otherwise), and the article should explain the difference in motivations (i.e. war of extermination by germans vs. revenge by soviets). However, I believe such a section would help convey the ferocity of the fight on both sides as many of the Wehrmacht troops viewed the consequences of failure as annihilation and not merely failure of national Socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.77.6 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO there should be a single section (as there is now) but of course atrocities by both sides should be included. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The series of events preceding the opening of the Eastern Front ...

This para from the lede seems to belong to the background section. As a rule WP:LEDE "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Pre-1941 events are not covered by the article (just one paragraph in a Background section). Therefore the whole paragraph devoted to the events preceding the EF itself seems to be absolutely redundant in the lede.
In addition, the last paragraph ("This article, however, concentrates on the much larger conflict fought - after the start of Operation Barbarossa - from June 1941 to May 1945...") mostly repeats what is written in the very beginning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Siberian troops

The text:

"During the autumn, Stalin had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow (these troops had been stationed there in expectation of a Japanese attack, but Stalin's master spy Richard Sorge indicated that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead)."

seems to be not completely correct. According to Raymond L. Garthoff("The Soviet Manchurian Campaign, August 1945" Source: Military Affairs, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Oct., 1969), pp. 312-336), the size of Japanese elite Kwantung army was 1,1 million in 1942 and 787,600 in 1945. To contain this army, during the whole WWII the USSR kept about 750,000 infantry men, 1000 tanks and 1000 aircrafts north of Amur river. In other words, the amount of Soviet troops and armament was about equal to that of Kwantung army, and close to the amount of troops Hitler kept in western Europe foreseeing Allied invasion. Therefore, it is not correct to say that Stalin relied upon Sorge's data too much. I would propose to re-word the present text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your source. Regardless of how much of a force remained in the far east, some forces were transferred west in time to enter the battle of moscow. I have no idea if Sorge was the source or the reason; that's a separate question. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your point in unclear to me. The source states explicitly that three quarter million army was kept in far east to contain Kwantung army, and this amount was sufficient to stop Japanese troops even in the absence of reinforcement. The amount of troop was equal to the amount Hitler kept in Western Europe, and we know that he did expect Allied invasion there.
According to Louis Rotundo (The Creation of Soviet Reserves and the 1941 Campaign. Louis Rotundo Source: Military Affairs, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Jan., 1986), pp. 21-28), "over 30 divisions were moved from Far East in 1941, however the mobilization of new troops allowed the strength of Far East troops to double over the pre-war level." Therefore, the first statement (During the autumn, Stalin had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow) is correct, whereas the statement in parentheses (these troops had been stationed there in expectation of a Japanese attack, but Stalin's master spy Richard Sorge indicated that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead) is wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is you're going beyond what the source says. I agree the first bit of the sentence is correct. So, the remaining questions are: did Sorge tell his government that the Japanese would move south rather than attacking in China? Were there other intel sources? If yes, did Stalin believe him/them? If yes, did STAVKA weaken the far eastern army in order to help defend Moscow? The fact that a huge force was nevertheless maintained in the far east does not directly address these questions. An alternative wording, which bypasses the whole problem, might be something like this:

During the autumn, STAVKA had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow. These troops had been stationed there to defend against a possible Japanese attack, but intelligence estimates that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead allowed STAVKA to redeploy a portion of these forces.

How would that be? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem still remains. The text proposed by you creates an impression (although doesn't tell it explicitly) that the total number of troops in Far East decreased because Stavka was confident in Japanese peaceful intentions. However, as we see from the sources, the amount of troops in Far East was still quite sufficient to stop Kwantung army; moreover, this amount even increased in 1941. We need either to add more explanations, or to remove this peace of the text. Taking into account, that the text proposed by you essentially repeats the last sentence of the previous section I propose to remove is. Instead of that, I would add:"whereas a three quarter million army remained stationed there anticipating the attack of Japanese Kwantung Army." That would be more correct, because in actuality Sorge didn't report that Japan fully abandoned her aggressive plans. According to Victor Mayevsky, "This information made possible the transfer of Soviet divisions from the Far East, although the presence of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria necessitated the Soviet Union's keeping a large number of troops on the eastern borders..."
In actuality, according to him, the attack was possible at least twice: in 1941 (if Moscow was captured) and in 1942 (if battle of Stalingrad was won by Germany).
Minor point. Unlike "OKH" or "OKW", "Stavka" is not an acronym. It is short for "Stavka verkhovnogo glavnokomandovaniya", administrative staff and General Headquarters. Therefore, it is correct to write "Stavka", not "STAVKA".
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Casualties section biased?

First of all, one of the sources listed, a book "Ivan's War", I would say isn't exactly a reliable source, I remember reading some not so positive responses. Can't really find where I've read it, maybe someone here would want to try to help me out?
Another thing are some of the sentences in the section, they sound so one-sided: "...Stalin was willing to strike back against the invading Axis forces at all costs and led the war with extreme brutality..." - wasn't Hitler doing the same thing from 1943/1944 onward? The so called "total war"?
"Faced with badly equipped infantry units barely capable of standing up against machine guns, tanks and artillery..." - a generalisation as if this was a daily common through out the whole war. Needs to be specified where and when.
If you don't count dead POWs on both sides the ratio of killed military personel would be approximately 1,5 killed Soviet for every 1 Axis. If you compare it to Battle of France for example the ratio would be some 7 Allied individuals killed for every 1 Axis. In Battle of France it is attributed to the Blitzkrieg while in case of the Eastern Front it's because of those "Barbarian Russkies", am I right? At least that's how I feel about it reading the arguments in the current article section.
I say we need a rewrite. Or remove the 1st paragraph completely as it was before, leaving only the 2nd par ("The fighting involved millions of Axis and Soviet troops...") and onwards which sounds more neutral.
Anyone feeling the same way I do? IJK_Principle (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally agreed. The number of military losses (except dead POWs) really contradict to the picture drawn in the first para: 4,430,000 vs 6,650,000 do not support the para's statement. In addition, the paragraph should be carefully checked, because some statements seem to be unsupported by the sources. For instance, the sentence "The Red Army took much higher casualties than any other military force during World War II, in part because of high manpower attrition and inadequate time for training." pretends to be written based on the Glantz's report on Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk, July 1943. However, in actuality Glantz writes the following:

"However, it was in the tactical arena that Soviet forces had to make the greatest progress if they were to reverse the trends of the past and avoid tactical disasters that, in turn, could produce operational defeat. That progress was apparent at Kursk. It was clear that the tactical proficiency of the Soviet soldier and lower-ranking officer often lagged behind that of his German counterpart--in part because of high manpower attrition and inadequate time for training. However, those who had survived learned, and a generation of more tactically competent company, battalion, and regimental commanders emerged at Kursk. In part, that competence resulted from the systematic collection, analysis, and dissemination of war experiences conducted under the auspices of the General Staff."

Taking into account that the major Glantz's conclusion was :"Kursk stands like an object lesson to those who would stand in awe and fear of current offensive threats. Kursk announced to the world that for every offensive theory, there is a suitable defensive one available to those who devote the requisite thought necessary to develop it", I strongly doubt the sentence really reflects the main idea of the cited source.
A direct comparison of the sentence: "Stalin's order No 270 of 16 August 1941, states that in case of retreat or surrender, all officers involved were to be shot on the spot and all enlisted men threatened with total annihilation as well as possible reprisals against their families." with the Order No. 270's text demonstrates that the sentence does not reflect the order's text correctly.
My conclusion is that the paragraph should be either deleted or carefully examined, because I have a strong reason to suspect that the sources does not directly support the information as it is presented in the para.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence:

"In accordance with the orders of Soviet High Command, retreating soldiers or even soldiers who hesitated to advance faced being shot by rearguard SMERSH units:Stalin's order No 270 of 16 August 1941, states that"

is wrong. It obviously is a confusion between Order No. 270 and Order No. 227: barrier troops were formed pursuant to the latter. In addition, the source (Ivan's war) says that the requirement for armies to maintain companies of barrier troops was withdrawn after just three months, on October 29 1942. Intended to galvanise the morale of the hard-pressed Soviet Army and emphasise patriotism, it had a generally detrimental effect and was not consistently implemented by commanders who viewed diverting troops to create barrier units as a waste of manpower, so by October 1942 the idea of regular blocking units was quietly dropped (page 158). In connection to that, I believe we can remove this fragment as marginally relevant and unimportant.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the exact same paragraph is also present in the World War II casualties of the Soviet Union article, Causes section. IJK_Principle (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the unsourced sentence: "Faced with badly equipped infantry units barely capable of standing up against machine guns, tanks and artillery, the tactics of Soviet commanders were often based on mass infantry attacks, inflicting heavy losses on their own troops." is simply ridiculous, taking into account that during the war the USSR produced much more tanks than the Axis did (a great part of them was famous T-34, the best WWII tank, according to some sources), had perfect artillery, and Soviet infantry was equipped mostly with sub-machine guns, in contrast to German infantry, equipped with rifles. I believe, I can remove this statement, because the facts that took place in certain (short) phases of the war cannot be projected on the war as whole.
I am also curious why nothing was said about heavy Axis losses. In actuality, the Axis (the Axis as whole, including Japan) lost in Eastern front more troops than in all other theaters of war taken together...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another ridiculous statement is: "The genocidal death toll was attributed to several factors, including brutal mistreatment of POWs and captured partisans by both sides..." This sentence is intended to create an impression that both anti-Axis and anti-Allied partisan movements were of about equal scale. Definitely, it was not the case. In addition, high mortality among Axis POWs doesn't fit a genocide definition, because it is generally explained just by dramatic food and medical help shortage in the USSR as whole. GULAG prisoners and even civilians suffered from that in about the same extent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"multiple atrocities by the Germans and the Soviets against the civilian population and each other, the wholesale use of weaponry on the battlefield against huge masses of infantry." Again, taking into account that Soviet and Axis population losses are hard to compare, and because a considerable part of Axis civilian losses was inflicted by Western allies (including the Allied bombing campaign) it seems not correct to equate the scales of German and Soviet atrocities. Although formally the section pretends to be neutral, such an action has an opposite effect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Commander list

Since Andrey Vlassov has been recently included into the Commander list, I am wondering about the rules for incorporation of one or another person into this list. It is natural to expect that only highest rank commanders (Army generals or marshals) should be included there. Alternatively, only the commanders of fronts, Stavka and General Headquarters' should be included. By contrast, the person having a comparatively low rank, or the commanders of relatively small miloitary units (divisions or armies) should not be in the list. In connection to that, I propose to exclude the persons like Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Vlassov from the list.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That edit prompted precisely the same concern from me. I agree Stavka and Front commanders should be listed. But going below that simply turns this list into 'my favorite commanders'. I would exclude divisional commanders too, much as we may admire Rodimstev for example. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Commanders list in current form is just retardedly long. We have even some Croatian regimental commanders there. Soviet-German commanders should be limited to front and army group commanders and higher. From other states I would include Mannerheim and maybe also Antonescu and Bór-Komorowski.--Staberinde (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Croatian participation in the war was limited with one regiment, I don't think Croatian commander should be in the list. With regards to the Poles and Czechs, at least one commander should be there. In addition, leaving only Bór-Komorowski's name may create an absolutely wrong impression that he was a commander of the Polish Eastern front's troops, that was, obviously, not the case.
However, I support the proposal in general.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggested Bór-Komorowski only because Warsaw uprising wasnt under direct Soviet command like all other polish-czech commanders on allied side. But frankly if it creates some dispute here I would suggest removing him too. Considering scale of conflict and current situation in infobox we should generally cut more if that is needed for making everyone happy, instead of cutting less to make everyone "represented". Otherwise we will be soon also adding Romanian and Bulgarian commanders to allies side to represent period when they changed sides, not to mention whoever lead Slovak national uprising.--Staberinde (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lede

According to guidelines, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." From that point of view, the penultimate para looks somewhat odd. It tells about the events preceding EF, thereby reproducing a one paragraph long Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact section.

"The series of events preceding the opening of the Eastern Front included the invasion of Poland in 1939 by Nazi Germany and the resulting fourth partition of Poland when the Soviet Union used the invasion as a pretext to annex the eastern regions of the country, populated by a majority of ethnic Ukrainians and Belarussians and by Polish minorities, as outlined in the secret codicil to the August 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression pact, which also paved the way for the 1940 Soviet occupation of Baltic states and the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia."

Most interestingly, from the last paragraph we learn that the events described in the above para are not included into the article. ("This article, however, concentrates on the much larger conflict fought"). It is unclear for me why about 20% of the lede's space is devoted to the events not covered by the article.
I propose to remove the penultimate lead's para and to rewrite the last paragraph accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Result

The proposed EF result:

Decisive Soviet victory.

• Fall Of The Nazi Germany.
• Allied Victory In European Theatre Of WWII.
• Soviet Occupation Of Germany.
• Division Of Germany Into East Germany And West Germany.
• Beginning Of The Cold War.

seem to be too broad. The USSR occupied only a part of Germany, division of Germany took place later, Cold War started not immediately after WWII, and, probably, was not inevitable. From other hand, "Allied Victory In European Theatre Of WWII" is too narrow, because the victory in EF had a deep impact on the war in Pacific, and, therefore caused the victory in WWII as whole. I fixed that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Beligerents

Belarusian Central Rada was nominally the government of Belarus from 1943–44. Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia was a NGO. Both of them weren't states, therefore, I see no reason to include them into the Belligerent section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I partly agree. However, if this is the standard, why are the Polish Underground "State" and the Polish Committee of National Liberation listed as belligerents? Both of these could hardly be considered states, the former being a resistance movement, and the latter a "committee for liberation" (like the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia). This is a double standard at its worst. Lt.Specht (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is simple. Poland never surrendered, so it continued to be a belligerent from 1 Sept 1939 to May 8 1945. Therefore both the Polish Underground "State" and the Polish Committee of National Liberation may be considered successors of the pre-war Polish state. In addition, they performed really independent military activity and fielded a considerable amount of troops. Nothing of that was done by Rada or a committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia. Similarity in names is misleading in that case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the Polish Committee (which was only recognized by the Soviets), taken from its wiki page, "It exercised control over Polish territory re-taken from Nazi Germany and was fully sponsored and controlled by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", "the Soviet Union started to transfer power in the Soviet-controlled areas of Lublin, Białystok, Rzeszów and Warsaw Voivodships to the PKWN. Actual control over those areas remained in the hands of the NKVD and the Red Army", "Similar events took place in many of the other East European states under control of the Red Army, as, for example, in Romania in March, 1945, where a Communist government was elected through a combination of vote manipulation, elimination and forced mergers of competing parties." Seems like a "State" on par with Rada and Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia (which did too field a large amount of troops and performed nominally independent, Russian Liberation Army, Rada also provied a significant amount of manpower and formed Commando units). The Polish Underground State could be arguably a belligerent, but the Polish Committee of National Liberation is no more qualified than Rada or the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia. Sources are needed for both the Underground State and the Polish Committee of National Liberation which claim they are belligerents, in my opinion, if both Rada and the Committee of Russian Liberation are going to be double standard-excluded from the infobox. Lt.Specht (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the Polish Committee was recognized only by the Soviets (that, by contrast, didn't recognized the London Poles), however, it eventually laid a ground for formation of the new Polish state, People's Republic of Poland. The latter was subsequently recognized by other states (including Western democraties), that post factum legitimated the Commitee. With regards to Soviet control of Wojsko Polskie, I don't think a degree of such a control was higher than that of Anglo-American control of Free French forces.
By contrast, Rada was not recognized even by Germans themselves, they fielded no military troops in their own uniform, the Russian Liberation Army didn't exist until 1944 and it participated in almost no hostilities against the Red Army. In addition, the linkage between the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia and the Russian Liberation Army in unclear for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Belorussian Central Rada is about as much separate combatant as Reichskommissariat Ostland and Reichskommissariat Ukraine or even less. Although on other hand I am not really sure if comparison of Polish Committee and Free French is appropriate either. Anyway there seems to be annoying tendency to put as much separate combatants/commanders in infoboxes as possible, making infoboxes annoyingly long, and this article is pretty extreme case of that.--Staberinde (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't compare political autonomy of Polish Committee and Free French. My major point was that (at least, initially) French forces were subordinated to the Anglo-American high command, similarly to the Polish troops in East, that were subordinated to the Soviets. This fact, taken separately, means nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

to Paul Siebert: Spanish Blue Division added as a belligerent

You have continually undone my efforts to add Spanish Blue Division as a belligerent while can not give me a reasonable excuse.

1.WHY THE BLUE DIVISION CAN BE LISTED AS A BELLIGERENT? --The German OKW(should be the High Command, I did not remember it right here) documents listed the Blue Division as a German-allied division themselves, see The rise and Fall of the Third Reich, page 911, para 3, line 2-6, ISBN 0-09-942176-3. How do you interpret this? The Germans themselves were wrong, you are right?!

2.WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BLUE DIVISION AND OTHER GERMANY'S FOREIGN UNITS? --A. the Spanish government, as the sole legitimate goverment of a sovereign and internationally recognized country, organized the unit on its own for the clear purpose of fighting in the Eastern Front, unlike Norwegian, Dutch, Danish, Belgian, French, Ukrainian or Baltic units which were either recruited directly by German occupation authority or organized by Germany-controlled puppet regimes and institutions, while none of these was a lawful entity representing their respective country.

--B. the Spanish government maintained final control over the unit which was only under tactical German command, and withdrew the unit against Germany's will in the end of 1943. When Spain ordered the unit's soldiers not to fight for the Axis again, the majority obeyed.

--C.the word "Volunteer" is not as important as you may think. For instance, the CPVA that fought the US-led forces in the Korean War had the word "volunteer" in its name, but everyone knows it was representing the PRC. When China warned the US not to cross the 38th Parallel, the US didn't listen, and the subsequent Chinese reaction was the CPVA. Everyone knows China was a belligerent in the Korean War, no one questions it citing that the Chinese forces fought under the name of CPVA.

3. As for Belarusian Central Rada, it was a puppet regime(which I have clearly stated). But, can you tell me why puppet regimes can not be listed as belligerents? See the Yugoslav front of WW2, Pacific War, Burma Campaign and numerous other Wiki articles, puppet regimes were listed as belligerents widely. The Central Rada was a minor power in comparison with other participants, but it was a belligerent of the Eastern Front.

You also tried to prove your point by saying the Central Rada did not maintain any military so that can not be listed. After this was proved wrong (The Belarusian BKA existed), you did not respond but rather once again delete the additions citing your old wrong reasons. The BKA was a nominally independent formation under the puppet regime, unlike other Eastern Front foreign volunteer units recruited by puppet regimes and formed parts of the German Wehrmacht.

Lastly, non-state actors can form belligerents as well. I did not add the Russian liberation committee as a belligerent, but I would support it. See Misplaced Pages article War in Afghanistan 2001-present, the belligerents include Al-Qaida, Taliban and others, none of which is a state. But, due to the many local parties involved in the war, might be a better solution is to collectively call them"varius local nationalist movements and organizations"?

Based on these, please do make sure you have some reasons to go before you undo others' work. It is not in a respectful manner to undo without giving reasons.

Vulturedroid (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, sending military units against some country means declaration of a war. Spain was neutral during WWII. Listing the Blue division as a separate belligerent means either that Spain was a belligerent or that the Blue division acted independently on both German and Spanish High Command. It is nonsense.

With regards to Rada, it was just a nominally puppet state (in other words, it was not even a puppet state, see a Staberinde's comment). Slovakian solders, for instance, wore their own uniform. What uniform had Rada's solders?
PS I will not revert your edits for a while but I'll do that in close future unless you provided more solud ground, namely, reliable sources that explicitly mention the Blue division ar Rada as separate belligerents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "It is not in a respectful manner to undo without giving reasons." I provided reasons for undoing. In addition, other editors seem to support this undoing. I would say, it is not a respectful manner to re-insert already reverted edits before a consensus is achieved. Moreover, it is against the Bold-revert-discuss rule.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "non-state actors can form belligerents as well". Al-Quaida is considered a belligerent because it acted independently and directly deployed troops against the USA. Did the Committee act independently and how many troops were subordinated to it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

1st. "Sending military units against some country means declaration of a war"? Tell me then:

A. did the USA declared war on Iraq in both Iraqi War and Gulf War? Never, see B. did Uk or Argentina declare war on each other during the Falkland War? Neither, see C. did the USA in the Korean War declare a war? Never, see

2nd."Listing the Blue division as a separate belligerent means either that Spain was a belligerent or that the Blue division acted independently on both German and Spanish High Command, it is nonsense"? WOW, you must have not heard of the words"de jure" and "de facto", have you? WW2 Spain was both a de jure neutral state and a de facto co-belligerent of the Axis, understand? The reason to say "Spanish Blue Division" rather than "Spain" is that the 1st name can better describe the complicated position Spain took. If one did not know anything about WW2 Spain, then when he saw Spain in the list he would naturally think that Spain was no different from Romania, Italy, Germany etc., but if he saw "Spanish Blue Division" he would wonder why a unit could join a list of countries/puppets, then he would click the link to see more about the division. Using "Spain" here can be misleading to new ones while can not fully display the extent of Spanish involvement in the Eastern Front.

PS: what is your understanding of "nonsense"? I have told you the very references to see, you did not see them, did not dispute them, but you constantly ask me to provide "reliable" source while you yourself providing none, well, to me, this is "nonsense"!

3nd. about Rada. So, now, seeing that you were wrong to say that no Belarusian military existed, you begin to switch to a new topic without acknowledging your previous mistake? Okay, you want uniforms, I give you the picture of uniforms. But before that, I want you to sincerely tell me what your view is on the fact that Soviet airmen participated in the Korean War were wearing North Korean uniforms and their planes decorated with Chinese or North Korean marks? Do you agree that Soviet Union was a belligerent in the Korean War, or do you think the Soviets were Chinese or North Korean military members? Answer me if you can.

Now I give you the picture of BKA uniforms, you see it yourself and tell me were these Wehrmacht uniforms? .

4rd. Source? I have already given so many times my reference.

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, page 911,paragraph 3, line 2 to line 6: "So successful were he and Keitel with all the satellites that the German High Command calculated it would have 52 'Allied' divisions available for the summer's task-27 Romanian, 13 Hungarian, 9 Italian, 2 Slovak and one SPANISH".

As for the Rada, I have not found anything that explictly said "The Belarusian Central Rada was a belligerent". Why? There is so few available English articles about this formation, and I do not know Russian. It is a ridiculous question, because you can not find every simplest fact written in words. With all due respect, can you find out articles "explicitly mention" that "Paul Siebert is a human rather than a robot"? You can not, but no one will dispute this simply because no robots can talk like the way you have talked, the facts tell us you are a human, not a robot. Similarly, a puppet regime had troops in the Eastern Front, and the troops were not there for sight-seeing or learning music, this fact makes the Rada a belligerent. BTW: the same principle also applies to your point, don't you think? May I ask you to "find a source explicitly mentions that Belarusian Central Rada was not a belligerent" or I will automatically prove my own point?

5th."concensus"? During the 1st time when I talked to you, you said that the Blue Division was addded and removed several times before I added it for the 1st time, which means there are people who would like to dispute the removal of it. Besides, and most importantly, I do sincerely believe that only facts can be listed here. You disprove my reference or statements or I will have it in accodance with facts at hand.

6th. Al-Qaeda is an independent party, okay. Then tell me, the Yugoslav Front article, as well as other examples I have given previously, all listed puppet regimes, which were not independent, as belligerents. Do you think they all make mistakes?

7th. When I said "without giving reasons",, virtually I mean "without giving correct reasons". If a reason has been disproved, and you continue to raise it again without arguing the opposite points, then it is not a reason in the debate.

8th. I am fed up about your endless questions. If you make a statement that's proven wrong, you simply turn to another without acknowledging your mistake. I have given you clear reasons and reference, if you undo my work again without disproving the reference or showing convincing evidence to support your view, then you will be reported to the admin for vandalism. Your last warning.

Vulturedroid (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Having the Blue Division as a belligerent seems to be pushing it to far, as they did wear Wehrmacht uniforms and everything. Franco also declared that Spain was non-belligerent in the war. On the other hand, the article does currently have the 1st Czechoslovakian Independent Brigade listed as the Czechoslovak Republic, a country and government which was legally dissolved by its own government and leaders, its legal successor being the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, with its same President and everything. Regardless, I will add the proper citations and sources for Rada and the Blue Division soon. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Re: 1st. Well, I was not accurate enough. I meant that Sending military units against some country means becoming a belligerent. Although the USA declared no war on Iraq, by sending military units they became a belligerent, didn't they?

Re: 2nd. ("seeing that you were wrong to say that no Belarusian military existed") The question was if Belarussian military (besides partisans) fought as German allies, or they were just hiwi military/paramilitary that were directly subordinated to local German authorities. AFAIK they were under direct control of Curt von Gottberg, so they can hardly be considered a separate belligerent. With regards to the uniform, the picture presented by you is a primary source, so we can use it as a support for your claim only if it does it directly. The interpretation of this picture is ambiguous: a Belarussian caption tells us that "Belarussian youth is marshing to the railway station", whereas the German wersion specifies that they go under national Belarussian flag to Germany for training. It is not clear from the captions that they represent armed forces of at least nominally recognized state.

Re: 3rd. Again, it is not clear how a division can be a separate belligerent. The sources available for me tell that the Blue division was sent by Franco, however, Franco abstained from participation in the war. That was possible only if the Blue division was directly subordinated to the German command (to Manstein, afaik). Consequently, I see no difference between the Blue division and Charlemagne, for instance. Both Spaniards and French joined Wehrmacht, so the only difference between these two divisions was in the mechanism of their formation, not in their position in German Army. (One more restriction was that Franco requested Blue division to be utilized against the USSR only).

Re: 4th. I agree that WP is not a democracy, and only facts and sources matter. However, since it was you who introduced this new text, the burden of evidence lies on you. Therefore, it would be more correct to say that "you confirm your statements or I will have to remove it in accordance with facts and WP policy". I see no sufficient ground so far to claim that you have sustained your burden of evidence.

Re: 5th. Al-Qaeda, Yugoslavs, minor Axis members etc fought independently, although sometimes in collaboration with their allies. I see no analogy with Rada.

Re: 6th. "When I said "without giving reasons"" etc. You haven't refuted my arguments so far.

Re: 7th. I believe I addressed all your arguments 1 to 6. With regards to your other statements, let me tell you that I have much more reasons to accuse you in violation of WP policy than you do. However, I will not do that because I hate to play these games, and, in addition, I feel you are new in Misplaced Pages and, probably, as soon as you will get more familiar with the rules and policy (and after you encounter some really problem editor) all your behavioural and communication problems will go.

I wait for additional sources and arguments from you. Otherwise I'll delete Rada and Blue division in a couple of days (note, according to WP guidelines I can do that right now, however I prefer not to do that as a sign of a good will)
Cheers,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:

1st. What do you mean by not "accurate enough", another way to find an excuse for your wrong statement? Even so, I have already answered you in your new interpretation, that Spain was a de jure neutral state and a de facto co-belligerent, do you understand what I said?

2nd. All right, you were again not accurate enough, right? Okay, go for the debate over your new interpretation then. The BKA was not Hiwi units, as shown in the link(did you see the link or not?), it was subrdinated to the German occupation authority, you know why? They were armed forces of a puppet regime. Much like the collaborationist units in Northeastern China were directly put under Japanese command, but nominally were still the armed forces of "Manchukuo" puppet regimeI told you they were puppets, if they could be fully independent, then what would the word mean for?

As for the BKA uniform, you disputed it because it is a "primary source", could you please do kindly tell me, how can I find some source that's not "primary"? The homepage of BKA 2009 recruitment or what? And even if I found sth not "primary", based on the Soviet uniform issue I have shown you, can it prove, or disprove, anything?

3rd. Explained already. If you want to change it to "Spain", I would not oppose, but would suggest that some additional explainations be attached also.

4th. I do not know if you have read my references by far. For example, the book, the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and numerous Wiki sources. I gave you the references, it would be your fault not to see them.

5th. You are using bi-standards. Yugolav puppets were, in your ridiculous points, independent, while Rada was not. Ridiculous.

6th. Explained already.

7th. If you delete them again without disproving my references(which I have given you a thousand times), then go to the admin. Based on the way you participated in the debate, I would not be surprised if you proceed what you said. Go then, and wait for consequences.

PS. One last time, can you tell me if you want to say that the Germans made a mistake by categorizing the Blue Division as their allied-division, and you are more qualified to determine who was Germany's ally than Germans themselves? You have been aviding any comment on this fact.

Vulturedroid (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "a country and government which was legally dissolved by its own government and leaders" This legal dissolution was much less legal than anexation of the Baltic states by the USSR. Only future Axis countries recognized it was legal.

Re: "Regardless, I will add the proper citations and sources for Rada and the Blue Division soon." Which statements are these sources intended to support?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand your question. Intended to support that they were belligerents, at least in the same capacity that that other Allied belligerents that are currently listed were. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would be interesting to see your sources. I found no sources supporting these claims so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Responds on ##1 to 6

1. Re: "that Spain was a de jure neutral state and a de facto co-belligerent" I know a number of sources confirming the your first part of your statement, however, the same sources do not support, or even directly contradict to the second part of this statement, namely, that Spain was both de jure and de facto neutral. However, it is not so important. The most important thing is that the Blue division was a regular Wehrmacht division, and the quotes below fully, unequivocally and persuasively comfirms this my point:

"By the end of July, the 18,000 Spaniards had arrived at the German Army training center at Grafenwohr, where they were created into the 250th Infantry Division of the Wehrmacht. The Division itself was composed of three regiments, the 262d (under a Colonel Pimentel), the 263d (under Colonel Esparza), and the 269th (under Colonel Vierna), plus the 250th Mobile Reserve Battalion, the 250th Artillery Regiment, two divisional antitank companies, a sapper unit, and administrative, sanitation, medical, and veterinary units. In addition, a contingent from the Guardia Civil was incorporated into the Military Police to serve behind the Spanish sectors of the German lines. Some months later in Russia, a company of Spanish com- bat ski troops were organized under a Captain Ordas. Finally, several units of Spanish fighter pilots were organized into combat con- tingents attached to the Luftwaffe.
Dressed in regulation German Army uniforms and trained throughout August and half of September by German instructors, the Spanish volunteers were nonetheless encouraged to wear their native shoulder patch (Espana), were led by their Spanish officers, and were "allowed" to bear the obsolete Spanish weapons brought with them from Madrid. Following their absorption into the Wehrmacht, the volunteers were required to take the standard personal oath to Hitler, under whose authority they were to be fighting." (Spanish Volunteers against Bolshevism: The Blue Division Author(s): Arnold Krammer Source: Russian Review, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 388-402)

"On 31 July, as the 250? Division was formally incorporated into the Wehrmacht, the Spanish volunteers each took a personal oath to Hitler."(Franco and the Axis Stigma. Author(s): David Wingeate Pike Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 1982), pp. 369-407)

I believe it is quite sufficient to delete the Spanish Blue Division from the belligerents' list, what I will do right now.

2. Re: "it was subrdinated to the German occupation authority". You fully confirmed my point. If they were subordinated to German occupation authority, they cannot be a separate belligerent. Were Hungarian, Romanian (leaving aside the Finns) militaries directly subordinated to German military authorities? The answer is no. Moreover, they were not puppet states, they were just junior members of the coalition. The quote below confirm that:

"As part of the preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa), the Germans established a military mission in Romania.3 Composed at first mainly of Army personnel, its nature changed once Barbarossa began. By November 1941, the Germans had about 63,000 men in Romania, of whom some 45,000 were in the DLM."

""On the whole, however, the record of Axis coalition warfare on the eastern front is a poor one, with failures at every level. Major reasons for these failures included language barriers, a radical difference in the degree of modernity in the level of technology and training of the Axis armies, Germany's failure to become "the arsenal of fascism," and a lack of understanding on the part of all the Axis powers, with perhaps the exception of Finland, of the relationship between national objectives, strategy, and the morale of soldiers and officers alike." )(The Dysfunctional Coalition: The Axis Powers and the Eastern Front in World War II Author(s): R. L. DiNardo Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 711-730)

Note, the source discuss Romanian, Hungarian etc. own objectives.

The only questionable belligerents are Slovakia and Croatia. However, they have some important traits of real states, similar to that of Vichy France: their own government, their own army, their own political parties and legislation. Did Rada have at least something like that? No. It was an occupied territory, and the only thing its "army" could do was to help Germans to fight against Partisans. The latters were much stronger and much more numerous, and in the absence of Wehrmacht they would steamroll this "government" in days. Again, the occupation authorities granted minimal autonomy to a handful of collaborationists, and it is deeply incorrect to compare this pseudopuppet state with Slovakia and Croatia.

3. This question needs no answer because, as I already proved, neither Spain nor the Blue division were a separate belligerents.

4. Taking into account that my sources directly state that neither Spain nor the Blue division were a separate belligerents it is clear that you didn't sustain your burden of evidence.

5. I explained the difference between Croatia and Rada, I believe it is sufficient. However, it might be useful for you to read, for instance that article (Rivalry between Germany and Italy in Croatia, 1942-1943 Author(s): Srdjan Trifkovic Source: The Historical Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 879-904) that states that Croatia was both in German and Italian spheres of influence, and was more a satellite rather than a puppet state. Nothing in common with Rada.

6.

7. Again, feel free to do whatever you want. You seem not fully understand how does Misplaced Pages works.
Finally, I delete the Blue division and I give you some more time to find additional sources on Rada.
Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The recent revert is not justified. The source (Shirer) does not support the text. The text: "and other leaders of the German High Command, considered the Spanish Blue Division to be an "Allied Division", in the same context of Romanian, Hungarian, etc. divisions. William L. Shirer. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is a pure example of WP:OR because it is the editor's conclusion made based on the Shirer's book. Please, do not restore the Blue division, because you have no ground for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies on you this time. Please do prove that the German High Command did not do so and it was the author of the book who added it. Before you can prove that, I will add it here. A review seems that I misread what you mean just now. So, what you really meant to say is that you would not dispute the contents of the book, but rather my interpretation of it, is this understanding correct?

1st. I would like you to know that the text was not written by me, check the edit history. 2nd. I do not know how you can say that it is the editor's conclusion. It was written in the book, and I have provided exact words and locations. The Germans listed the Blue Division as a allied-division together with Romanian, Hungarian, Italian and Slovak divisions, what is your interpretation of these words? I am really eager to know.

Vulturedroid (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you decreased a level of your rhetoric.

Re: "but rather my interpretation of it" Correct. The quote you talk about is "So successful were he and Keitel with all the satellites that the German High Command calculated it would have 52 'Allied' divisions available for the summer's task-27 Romanian, 13 Hungarian, 9 Italian, 2 Slovak and one Spanish", and I have nothing against that. However, the conclusion (made by Lt.Specht, if I am not wrong) that "leaders of the German High Command, considered the Spanish Blue Division to be an "Allied Division", in the same context of Romanian, Hungarian, etc. divisions" is an interpretation of the Shirer's own words, and it was attributed to the German High Command mistakenly. In addition, Shirer doesn't say directly that the Blue division was a separate belligerent. By contrast, my sources directly state that this division was a formal part of Wehrmacht. Anyway per WP:BURDEN, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and the source provided by you does not fully support your edit, whereas my two sources (and I can provide more) tell directly opposite. Romanian of Hungarian divisions were not an official part of Wehrmacht, they had separate uniform, separate command and didn't have to take the standard personal oath to Hitler. And that is quite sufficient to consider them belligerents, by contrast to Spaniards.
I propose to close the discussion. You already violated WP:3RR rule, you committed personal attacks and your behaviour may be interpreted as uncivil. I already have enough material to report to ANI, but I have no intentions to do that because your behaviour seems to be a result of unawareness of some basic WP rules. I see you are quite prone to productive and constructive discussion, so I propose you to forget this incident. I believe you don't mind me to remove the Blue division from the article, and let's switch to something else. OK?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My feelings are:

1st. I admit that I am a newcomer unfamiliar with the rules, that I violated 3RRs, and that I launched attack against you(this was not due to unawareness but rather outrage due to your deliverate ignorance). I apologize for these misconducts to you sincerely.

2nd. Though thank you for your generosity not to report to the admin, I have my own principles that wrongdoings pegged to punishments. I have informed admin of my misconducts and asked for punishment.

3rd. I still strongly disagree with you in this dispute, and I do think that you are the one making rhetoric statements. I have given you a clear source saying that Blue Division was considered by German High Command as an allied-division, your interpretation of it is quite ridiculous and against common logic, and the reasons you have raised were answered already here or there(e.g. uniforms here, German Wehrmacht formation title in my talk page etc.). But, there are several things I will do 1st: to learn the rules, to prepare for an certification exam(due in mid-Nov., I had planned to begin preparation today), to work. I will absolutely come back to challenge you after these are done, because, if I may say so that plainly, I came here to share things I believe right, rather than to make a "friend" at the expense of my belief.

Vulturedroid (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Milan Pojić. Hrvatska pukovnija 369. na Istočnom bojištu 1941. - 1943 ISBN: 978-953-6005-88-8 Izdavač: Hrvatski državni arhiv. 2007.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Yugoslav_front
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/Pacific_War
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/Burma_campaign
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/Falkland_war
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Korean_War#A_Comment
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/MiG_Alley
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1991-0206-506,_Wei%C3%9Frussland,_Minsk.jpg
10. http://cache.baidu.com/c?m=9d78d513d9d430af4f99e7697b12c0106e4381132ba7db020ba78449e3732a365016e0ac57550770a2d27c1616de434b9cf72102401454c68cc9f85dabbf8558259f5744676a8755559347a091006383379129f4b25ca2ffe732e4ff81929e4353bd0f523c97f0fc0b5c098235b7476da5fd84194f0307bd996827a3443673c26657b13385b7772f1081818e1d0ed42ba43a4780ae43b33411bf13&p=aa78c64ad28111a05bebcb654551&user=baidu
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DJ_Clayworth

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Germany articles
• High-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• C-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• C-Class Italian military history articles
• Italian military history task force articles
• C-Class Polish military history articles
• Polish military history task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• Top-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists