Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)

Article states the following "At 03:15 on 22 June 1941, 99 of 190 German divisions, including fourteen panzer divisions and ten motorized, were deployed against the Soviet Union from the Baltic to the Black Sea. They were accompanied by ten Romanian divisions, three Italian divisions, two Slovakian divisions and nine Romanian and four Hungarian brigades".

This is most certainly not true, because Hungary only declared war against the Soviet Union on June 27th and so couldn't have supplied any brigades for the original invasion 5 days before. The source for this I cannot review directly, as the reference points to an offline Russian book published in 1973. My source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160505212551/https://worldatwar.net/timeline/other/diplomacy39-45.html

Btw, in light of this error, it might generally be useful to review any other info sourced from the 1973 Russian book. As you might know, during the Soviet era, certain historical events really weren't publishe in th official histories as they actually had happened. I recommend Antony Beevor instead, he's got nice war books, and he's not publishing in a totalitarian state which was a direct participant in the conflict the page is about.

Top 6 photos.Last photo to the right is a Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen photograph.Photo not complete.Half of photo is missing.

'8 May' and '9 May' are being used inconsistently. EnTerbury (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

There was a somewhat heated disagreement about this image's removal back in 2010. At the time it was under copyright, and according to the WP article about the picture, it passed out of copyright in 2016. Would that make it "free content" for purposes of the relevant Wikipedia policies, and therefore eligible to be restored to the lead image? It's an iconic image of the war, and if there's no policy-based reason to leave it out, I think it should go back in. SS451 (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey there!

I was concerned with the addition of Spain, Vichy France, and the Swiss Medical Mission in the infobox. I think that these flags should be removed from the infobox entirely, as it makes these nations have a sovereign belligerence on par with the other Axis powers, when in reality these nations provided relatively volunteer forces that were fully integrated into the German Wehrmacht, both French and Spanish combat forces were inducted into the Wehrmacht, recieved Wehrmacht pay, and swore the same oath to Hitler as any other recruit did.

The participation of these units is vital to a fuller understanding of the Second World War, but in the context of the infobox, I think it conveys the wrong message to the casual reader. At best, it is confusing to find Spain and Switzerland listed as participants, when even within this infobox, neither are shown on the map if you click the link on Belligerents. At worst, the inclusion of those flags conveys the propaganda goal of these units; that the Eastern front was a European crusade against Bolshevism enjoying broad support, rather than a genocidal campaign initiated by Nazi Germany to create racial utopia in the Steppes. I firmly believe that these units are better contextualized in a note, rather than enjoying the prominence of a national flag in the infobox as if they are equivalent to the other Axis powers.

I am looser with Croatia, despite the NDH describing its units as volunteer forces, as it aceded to the Tripartite Pact, and Croatia became part of the Eastern Front in 1944. In this case, volunteer forces is a misnomer for true Croatian participation, even in the abscence of an official declaration of war.

There is a lot to discuss on this subject, so I welcome any opinions on this.

I also noted that Slovakia, and Croatia were puppet states to bring this into line with European theatre of World War II Xenomorph 001 (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

idk if i should ping @Xenomorph 001 eeee

inclusion of the swiss medical commission is obviously absurd, and i removed vichy once already, since the french volunteers were not sent by the vichy government, but by the nazi german authorities of the northern zone - they represented the more radical non-vichy collaborationism

unlike spain, which participated more or less to the same extent as croatia - which was smaller than the one of slovakia which sent its troops directly: the spanish volunteers were recruited officially, and its article mentions that "It was officially designated the Spanish Volunteer Division (División Española de Voluntarios) by the Spanish Army."

...

regarding "and Croatia became part of the Eastern Front in 1944" - there is some confusion where's the exact separation between the eastern front and the yugoslav front which was separate

i remember that i had to struggle a little to add yugoslavia to the infobox - i had to cite that there were yugoslav units of the red army, since, apparently, the participation of the red army in the Belgrade offensive and the Syrmian Front seemingly was not enough Opostylov (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey there!

I included Croatia on the assumption that the Syrmian front was part of the Eastern front, if that is not correct, we can remove that.

On the difference between Spain and Croatian participation; the infobox generally contains states meeting two criteria 1) belligerent, and 2) full members of either the Axis or Allied powers. Both Spain and Croatia contribute to the Eastern as a volunteer force, but Croatia is a fully-fledged member of the Axis powers, as it was afforded diplomatic recognition and acceded to the Tripartite Pact, along with its 'volunteer' contribution it meets the standard of a belligerent. Meanwhile Spain was not an Axis power, and was able to maneuver itself back into neutrality in 1944. Similar reason why the quisling Serbian government is not included: it was not afforded diplomatic recognition, and is therefore not a nation, despite its units participating in the conflict. The manpower size of the contribution is not the deciding factor, at least in my opinion.

Thanks! Xenomorph 001 (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Xenomorph 001 sorry for a late reply and a ping again, but regarding the Tripartite Pact criterion: Finland participated without being its member, so it's not a good criterion, while Spain may be treated as an Axis-aligned country due to signing the Anti-Comintern Pact, one of the three main Axis pact. It also sent a number of troops greater than Croatia (just googled a number "10 000" for Croatia, I won't find it anymore, but a division is greater than 2 regiments) Opostylov (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

btw, I still think that Spain and maybe Croatia should be separated from the main belligerents; it seems that some people want the "Support" parameter to be returned to the infoboxes of military conflicts, and on Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter i left a new message Opostylov (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I would rather have Finland listed as a co-belligerent, but that discussion was had something like seven years ago. Despite Finland fitting the definition of a co-belligerent to the letter, as long as we have some bottom of the barrel source from the US State Department that says Finland is basically an Axis power, I will forever lose that argument.

Like I said, the manpower size contribution is irrelevant to me. The Spanish State provides a volunteer unit, avoids Axis membership, and WWII does not come to its soil. Its ideological sympathies with Italy and Germany are clear, but its status in the Axis is more distant than Finland. The Franco regime's survival as the only European Fascist state for decades after WWII is just further proof of Spain's ability to separate itself from the Second World War. Croatia's fate, along with everyother member of the Tripartite Pact, is tied to Germany's fate in WWII, and Croatia's volunteer contribution is fictitous. Croatia did not send volunteers of its own voliton because it is not a sovereign state, rather it sent the requested support units to its patron states, but gave themn the veneer of volunteers for domestic reasons; hence the Puppet State tag.

I think "supported by" is too broad. We'll end up re-adding the French State, Switzerland for sending twelve people and an ambulance, Sweden for inventing Bofors AA guns, and probably Portugal because they sent a fishing boat or some total inanity like that. I marginally support a "Volunteer" tag, but expect that using the tag will also end up re-adding the French State, which I do not support.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be difficult here to salavage Franco's regime. They are obviously Fascists and deserve all the disdain that ideology comes with. My goal is to not fill the infobox for marginal contributions; the infobox is what the casual reader looks at and takes as gospel. If all we can communicate accurately in a glance is that the Axis and the Allies fought eachother, that's good enough. Spain's participation is complex, and the infobox can't communicate that complexity. By comparison, every other nation in this infobox is not complex, even though I consider Finland a co-belligerent, its participation is not in question, Finland's contribution is a national commitment by a sovereign state. Every other Axis nation is a member of the Tripartite Pact and their nation collapses around mid-May 1945 or earlier.

Thanks for your response! Looking forward to hearing back. Xenomorph 001 (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It won't lead to readdition of France, since, as I wrote above, Vichy didn't send its troops to the USSR - the Germans did, the French legion was not something connected to Vichy by any means

And I offered a sort of a criterion for what counts as "support" as "limited belligerence", you should see the thread - I would be glad if you (or anyone) said something there

"as long as we have some bottom of the barrel source fron the US State Department that says Finland is basically an Axis power" - i'm not sure if that counts as a reliable source, wiki is written mostly based on the historical books i think

Croatia did send troops on its own volition, puppet states have volitions too - Germany didn't make them send troops

The "complexity" relies rather on the ways Spain justified itself after WWII - I don't really see how is it relevant to the fact that it's participation in war with the USSR until 1945 was greater than the one of Croatia, methinks it's already enough to include it

writing from IP cuz mental health issues ~2026-30752-36 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey there! Hope your doing alright, and take care of yourself mentally and physically, no need to reply to my silliness if you need time. Luckily history will always be there. :-)

• I did take a read through the "supported by" talk, I feel my position on it is basically in-line with the other opposes; too much nuance for the infobox. I don't see it being added as long as the Russo-Ukrainian War infobox remains a battleground for crazy people with too much time on their hands. A quick note that might help clear up the France thing, and clarify nuance wihtin the Infobox; the French State does support recruiting for the LVF during 1942. The on-paper Tricolour Legion is historical reality. I 100% agree with you that it is not legitimately participation from the French State, but there is enough nuance in that fact to make the argument that the French State does constitute support/limited belligerence/volunteers. I actually think your Vietnam War example is excellent for this; the Soviet Union does send pilots to DRV and according to some sources those pilots engage in dogfights with US aircraft. Does that constitute legitimate participation, despite an abscense of a declaration of war? Probably not, but the nuance of it cannot be contained in an infobox, you need to silo off to other articles, websites, or books to reach your own conclusion on that. Conflicts involve so many different levels of participation that the conversation becomes a mess very quickly.
• In my opinion, the infobox is critical to an article. In a world of 10 second videos and short attention spans, the infobox will rapidly become the end all be all of a Wikipedia article. The casual reader will pull from that directly and not dig into the article itself, nevermind the footnotes, or additional reading. In the face of that, the infobox needs to be as concise and clear as possible. Concision and clarity is difficult, but then looking to other articles provides further clarity. Spain is absent from the European Theatre of World War II page, it is absent from the World War II page (that infobox is empty for the reasons we are discussing now), and it is not included in the Axis powers page that does include Finland, despite Finland factually not being an Axis power. I would include the Operation Barbarossa page as well, but Spain is not in that infobox because I have had the discussion I'm having with you now about Spain on the Barbarossa talk page already, and it feels rude to cite myself.
• To clarify, my disdain for Finland's addition without a tag in the infobox is because it leads to this discussion we are having right now. If Finland, demonstrably not an Axis power, but certainly an Axis-aligned power is included without caveats, why not Spain? Why not the French State? Why not every Axis-aligned power? There are a myriad of sources that support Finland being basically an Axis power, I just remember when someone dug up the State Department article years ago and co-belligerency disappeared. Still a bit of bitterness over that one. I believe the foundational source is Bowman's Fact of American Wars these days anyway, it is the most consistently cited.
• The issue of sovereignty during the Second World War is a deep pit, and one I love, but I will fall back on the conclusion reached during the Hostages Trial (part of the Nuremberg Trials) to avoid making this longer; "The Croatian Government could exist only at the sufferance of the occupant. During the occupation, the German military government was supreme or its status as a military occupant of a belligerent enemy nation did not exist. Other than the rights of occupation conferred by international law, no lawful authority could be exercised by the Germans. Hence, they had no legal right to create an independent sovereign state during the progress of the war. They could set up such a provisional government as was necessary to accomplish the purposes of the occupation but further than that they could not legally go. We are of the view that Croatia was at all times here involved an occupied country and that all acts performed by it were those for which the occupying power was responsible." Germany did not pressure the NDH, because the only reason the NDH existed was German pressure. The NDH's zeal for the National Socialist Weltanschuaung is built on their desire for greater internal legitimacy, and their volunteers are the same thing. The puppet state lacks sovereignty, and has no volition on that basis. Hence the puppet state labelling, they make a contribution, but they are not the same as the true members of the Axis powers. Once again, manpower commitment is entirely irrelevant, if we compare on that basis then the only countries that matter are the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Finland, and Romania, no other nations makes contributions on their scale. Yet that is not historical reality, nor is it how the infobox looks now.
• The basis of my resistance to adding Spain is that it communicates a continent-wide coalition of the willing supporting Germany in the infobox, when the reality is that Spain is distant from the Axis powers. Every other state in the infobox makes a national commitment, constituting national belligerence, and the fate of their nation is dependent on the outcome of the Second World War. Spain sends 17,000 men at a time, those troops are given the Hitler oath, fully absorbed into the Wehrmacht as the 250. Infanterie-Division, and they functionally mean nothing on the battlefield, besides being another infantry division to hold onto frozen patches of dirt under increasing Soviet pressure. In that sense, the 250. Infanterie-Divsion functions exactly like the volunteer formations that you agree do not count, like the LVF. Rather than being important at the time, the so-called Blue Division is one of the units that formed the basis of the German propaganda notion of a Crusade against Bolshevism, supported by all the irrelevant volunteer formations like the Danish Free Korps, LVF, the Walloon Legion, and all the other microscopic units wrung out of Europe to make the war for Lebensraum look like a war to save Europe from Communism. Part V.II in Germany and the Second Wolrd War Volume IV : The Attack on the Soviet Union (Located here) can help explain this. It is the wrong message to communicate in the infobox, unless we throw a Volunteer tag in there, and then all these other tiny units are up to be added too. The only argument in favor of Spain is manpower, everything else makes thier contribution just as meaningless as the other standard bearers of the so-called Crusade.
• I included Croatia despite its self-imposed volunteer label because it is a member of the Axis, sends troops, and shares the same fate as Nazi Germany and the other allies. Spain is not a member of the Axis, and does not share their fate, but it does send troops, just like a myriad of other irrelevant contribtuions to the Eastern Front on the German side. If that is too complex, we should remove Croatia, not add Spain.

Xenomorph 001 (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)