Talk:Prague offensive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prague Offensive Operation[edit]

What was the original name of that operation? Was it Operation Prague (Operatsiya Praga) or Prague Operation (Prazhskaya Operatsiya)? Halibutt 12:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Soviet encyclopedies refer to it as Prague Operation (Prazhskaya Operatsiya). Therefore I'd like to ask Philip about the reasons of the move of the page.

I am totally baffled with the total absence of the name in English-language sources. Google search for ("operation prague" + front) gives miserable numbers of hits, vast majority of them are translation from Russian and some actually refer to "Prague Spring". And (front + "operation prague") actually gives nothing relevant at all.

Hopefully, there are a couple of links that refer to Prague Offensive. So probably it would be the proper name.

In Soviet Encyclopedia of the Great Patriotic War (Великая Отечественная война 1941-1945. Энциклопедия. М., "Советская Энциклопедия", 1985) its full name is "Prague Offensive Operation", (Пражская наступательная операция, prazhskaya nastupatelnaya operacia).

Maps: http://rkka.ru/maps/tv24.gif http://rkka.ru/maps/praga.jpg

By the way,

http://www.fireonthevolga.com/Red%20Army%20casualties,%201941-1945.html

has the following useful list:

Red Army Casualties, 1941-1945

Total Armed Forces Losses, June 1941- May 1945

Killed in battle or died during evacuation: 5,187,190

Mortally wounded (and died later): 1,100,327

Died of illness (non-battle): 541,920

Missing in action or captured: 4,455,620

Non-mortal wounds: 15,205,592

Non-mortal illness and frostbite: 3,138,556

Total Armed Forces Casualties: 29,629,205

Equipment Losses, June 1941- May 1945

Tanks and self-propelled Guns: 96,500

Artillery: 218,000

Aircraft: 88,300


Soviet Losses in the Major Battles of the War

The Defense of Kiev (July-September 1941): 700,564 casualties; 411 tanks, 28,419 artillery pieces, and 343 planes

Battle of Smolensk (July-September 1941): 344,926 casualties; 1,348 tanks, 9,290 artillery pieces, and 903 planes

The Defense of Moscow (September-November 1941): 658,279 casualties; 2,785 tanks, 3,832 artillery pieces, and 293 planes

Siege of Sevastopol (October 1941-July 1942): 200,481 casualties; no data on equipment losses

Rzhev-Vyazma Offensive (January-April 1942): 776, 889 casualties; 957 tanks, 7,296 artillery pieces, and 550 planes

Kharkov Offensive (May 1942): 277,190 casualties; 652 tanks, 1,646 artillery pieces, and n/a planes

Battle of Stalingrad (July-November 1942): 643,842 casualties; 1,426 tanks, 12,137 artillery pieces, and 2,063 planes

Stalingrad Offensive (November 1942-February 1943): 485,777 casualties; 2,915 tanks, 3,591 artillery pieces, and 706 planes

Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive (November-December 1942): 215,674 casualties; 1,655 tanks, n/a artillery pieces, and n/a planes

Kharkov-Belgorod Offensive (March-August 1943): 255,566 casualties; 1,864 tanks, 423 artillery pieces, and 153 planes

Battle of Kursk (May-July 1943):177, 847 casualties; 1,614 tanks, 3,929 artillery pieces, and 459 planes

Lower Dnepr Offensive (September-December 1943): 754,392 casualties; 2,639 tanks, 3,125 artillery pieces, and 430 planes

Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive (January-April 1944): 313, 953 casualties; 462 tanks, 1,832 artillery pieces, and 260 planes

Crimean Offensive (April-May 1944): 84, 819 casualties; 171 tanks, 521 artillery pieces, and 179 planes

Belorussian Offensive (June-August 1944): 770,888 casualties; 2,957 tanks, 2,447 artillery pieces, and 822 planes

Baltic Offensive (September-November 1944): 280,090 casualties; 522 tanks, 2,593 artillery pieces, and 779 planes

Budapest Offensive (October 1944-February 1945): 320,082 casualties; 1,766 tanks, 4,127 artillery pieces, and 293 planes

Vistula-Oder Offensive (January-February 1945): 194,191 casualties; 1,267 tanks, 374 artillery pieces, and 343 planes

East Prussian Offensive (January-April 1945): 584,778 casualties; 3,525 tanks, 1,644 artillery pieces, and 1,450 planes

Vienna Offensive (March-April 1945): 177,745 casualties; 603 tanks, 764 artillery pieces, and 614 planes

Berlin Offensive (April-May 1945): 361,367 casualties; 1,997 tanks, 2,108 artillery pieces, and 917 planes

Prague Offensive (May 1945): 52,498 casualties; 373 tanks, 1,006 artillery pieces, and 80 planes

Source:

Glantz, David M., and Jonathan House. When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler. (Lawrence, Kansas: UP of Kansas, 1995)

Glantz, David M. Kharkov 1942: Anatomy of a Military Disaster. (Rockville Centre, NY: Sarpedon, 1998)

Glantz, David M. Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars. 1942 (Lawrence, Kansas: UP of Kansas, 1999)

Mikkalai 00:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In English Operations can be either "Operation ABC" or "ABC Operation", but as a convention on Wikipedia, we seem to have settled on "Operation XYZ", so I see no reason why Soviet operations should be different. It makes finding the articles a little easier. "Prague Offensive" would be get my vote, but there are many people who write articles for Wikipeadia who prefer to use the operational names eg Talk:Operation Corporate. Sometimes the main article is at the name of the battle like the Battle of Normandy with a redirect from Operation Overlord, sometimes it is at the name of the operation Operation Market Garden with a redirect from the battle name Battle of Arnhem. As a general rule thought for security reasons, the operational name is a code name, so in the examples you have given, I think that if the name is "Prague Offensive Operation" I would drop the word Operation and go with "Prague Offensive". There is one problem though with this naming convention which is none NPOV. If it is the "Prague Offensive Operation" for the Russians it is the "Prague Defensive Operation" for the Germans. "Prague Operation" or "Operation Prague" implies a missing word of initiated or offensive and carries the same connotations. This connotation is not there if the term Battle of Prague is used. Articles using Western Allied operations carry the same POV connotations, but a lot of native English speaking people do not seem to realise this because Anglo-American books, TV histrical programs and newspapers use such terms all the time. However as the WWII receeds into history the Anglo-American media is starting to adopt German terms like the second happy time so I don't think that "Prague Offensive" should cause any problems. As most of the Soviet campaigns are not well known in the English speaking world (with the exceptions of the big Battles), you are free to trail-blaze the naming convention :-) --PBS 02:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any objections if I move this article to "Prague Offensive"? PBS 18:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did Schörner desert his command[edit]

On the Ferdinand Schörner page I added:

On the May 8 an OKW colonel, was escorted through the American lines to see Schörner. The colonel reported that Schörner had ordered the men under his operational command to observer the surrender but that he could not guarantee that he would be obeyed everywhere. Later that day Schörner deserted his command and flew to Austria where on the May 18 he was arrested by the Americans.

Since I added this text which is sourced from "Battle of Berlin end of the Third Reich" by Earle F Ziemke, I have seen other sources which says that he formally surredered Army Group Centre to the Soviets on May 10 and then flew to Austria. Both can not be right. If you know the answer please post it with the source to Talk:Ferdinand Schörner, because it effects this page, the Schörner page, Army Group Centre and end of World War II in Europe. --PBS 19:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Continued resistance[edit]

The mention about the continued German resistance until the 11th or even 12th May would need some exact reference. Since it seems rather unlikely, there is a suspicion that this data was provided by the Soviet side which in fact is not the right source for stydying events between 1917 - 1991. David

Right. Anti-Soviet sources are better. And I don't see this as unlikely. If the fought after May 8th, then why not after 10th? Some simply didn't know about the surrender. Others didn't want or were afraid to surrender to Soviets and tried to fight their way to Americal frontline or to break out of encirclement and disperse. Possible reasons abound to make it very likely. Mikkalai 19:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A.J.P. Taylor in "The Second World War an Illustrated history" says on Page 223 "The last Germans surrender seem to have been in Heligoland which held out to the 11 May". (We know that is not correct because the Garrison of Alderney did not surrender until 16 May [1]) He goes on to say "Soviet forces entered Prague only on 12 May."

Antony Beevor: Berlin - The Downfall 1945: Annexes

  • 10 May Capture of Prague by Third Guards Tank Army. Surrender of German Sixteenth and Eighteenth Armies in Courland.
  • 14 May Surrender of last forces in East Prussia under General von Saucken.

At the end of the war, there were bands of armed German soldiers that had not surrendered weeks after the formal end of the war. Normally they were trying to sneak through Soviet lines to get to the Allies and surrender, or just get home. Some individuals surrendered weeks after the end of the war. For example Otto Skorzeny surrendered (with some difficulty) on May 16, Schorner captured May 18, Dönitz captured May 23. But what is of interest in this sort of article is not the odd group of stragglers, but coherent military units still in the field. It seems that all German Armies had surrendered by 11th. PBS 22:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to say explicitly that "anti-Soviet" sources are better to study the course of the WW2. I simply wanted to say that objective sources are better. Fortunately, the historiography is not divided into Soviet and "anti-Soviet" sources only, as many post-Soviets would like to stress. But let me be more exact. I am from Prague and I am aware of some basic facts. First of all the Red army did not enter the city until May 9th, at the time when Prague had already liberated itself on its own (not to mention the help of the general Vlasov's units). Right, there were many isolated gunfires the same day and the Soviet presence surely helped to pacify the fanatical remnants of German forces. But so far I have not found any evidence that there were some units continuing the struggle 3 or even 4 days after the German surrender. And therefore I hinted at the unreliability of the Soviet military encyclopedia. Because during the Communist era the Prague question used to be misused in the sense that it was in fact the Soviet side to whom the city should be grateful for its freedom. If I ever will find some then please accept in advance my apologies. David (User:194.108.138.184 10:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC) )[reply]

You can "sign" your entries on the talk pages by putting four squiggles ~~~~ at the end of your entry. It will add a date stamp for you and helps people see where one entry finishes and another starts.
A man on the spot. Do you have any sources and what specifically do the local history text books say? The trouble with English language sources, is that they tend to concentrate on the Western Front and the Esatern spectaculars like the Battle of Berlin. Mentions of Prague tend to be one sentence or at most one paragraph with no sources.
It seems to have been accepted in WWII that cease-fires took 12-24 hours after a surrender to come into effect probably due to communication problems. If Schörnher did agree to surrender his command to the Soviets on the 8th then the organised fighting probably finished on the 9th, but if he did not surrender until the 10th then it would be the 11th. So if we can find a definitive source for Schörnher's surrender (preferably with link to the document) then we can assume that organised fighting finished at army level with 24 hours. If he just did a bunk without agreeing anything and saying "fight to the last", then it would be down to the Armies in Army Group Centre to negociate seperatly in which case it would probably have been several days and centred on where they were in Czechoslovakia not specificaly on Prague. However if the Prague Offensive did not start until towards the end of or after the fall of Berlin then if the figures higher up this talk page of "52,498 casualties; 373 tanks, 1,006 artillery pieces, and 80 planes" are correct then there was very heavy fighting between May 2nd and the German surrender in Czechoslovakia. PBS 11:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That´s the right remark. I also have to admit that I might have misunderstood a bit the meaning of the context, since the sentence of the "continued struggle" followed the mention of Soviet troops entering Prague on May 9. Therefore it is not sure whether the given dates May 11 or 12 related directly to the fighting in Prague as such or whether they concern fighting of Schoerner´s army at other places in western Bohemia. As for Schoerner, I caught an information in Robin Cross´ Fallen Eagle that he ignored Keitel´s order to immediate capitulation for three days, that is from May 8 to May 11. On May 9 he simply boarded a plane and fled to Austria. So that might be a hint. In south-west Bohemia there are several places which claim to be the stage of "the last shots of the WW2", the most prominent of them Milin which witnessed a clash between Red army soldiers & allied Czech partisan units and some SS and Wehrmacht units at night between May 11th and 12th. So that might be the answer. If so, I should maybe try to write it into the text so that it is clear that Prague was not that place. Sorry if I caused any confusion before. 194.108.138.184 13:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC) David[reply]

German casualties[edit]

Currently the article says "troops were captured (~850,000)" ... It was opposed by about 900,000 troops of the 1st, 4th and 17th Panzer Armies of the Army Group Center (Ferdinand Schörner) and some Austrian corps under Lothar Rendulic." This would mean that German casualites killed and wounded in action would be around 50,000 if the other two figures are correct. --PBS 22:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very reluctant to put any such calculations into the article. The figures are very unreliable for this period, due to the total chaos that reigned at the time. Unfortunately the best that can be done is to give a general range of casualties, in my view. Andreas 07:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with that but putting 850,000 as it was yesterday is misleading. --PBS 08:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of them became POW it is a bit tricky what to select exactly. Casualties include POW for the Soviets (under irrecoverable), so normally POW should be included for the Germans as well for comparability, but I guess it is hard to draw a line in the case of the last days of the war. Andreas 14:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the Soviets choose to do is not realy of much relevence, it is not ususal to lump POWs wounded and killed together as just casualties in Wikipedia. If the wounded are captured then they may be lumped in with the other POWs. Take a look at the Fall of Singapore as an example. --PBS 15:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, why is the Soviet approach not of much relevance? I fail to see how the German/US/British/Sri Lankese approach has more to recommend it. Secondly, I suggest you check Casualty (Person) on Wikipedia and e.g. "casualty" in the online Cambridge Dicitionary to see that you are simply wrong. Casualties should include wounded, where these wounds are sufficient to render the combattant combat incapable. They should also include POW and MIA. If Wiki is not doing that at the moment it is doing something wrong, and the numbers should be adjusted. Andreas 15:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with all you have said about "should", but they have to be in catogories to be of any use. KIA is usually the minumum which is needed. The reason for showing Singapore as an example by the way was just that it was a battle in which there were only a handful of Brits that did not get captured, so it is simlar in outcome to this one. The Japanese were unlikely to be bothered to keep a lists of sick and wounded Brits, so the military records are likely to be able to indicate only that so many were taken POW, not their health at the time of capture. Given the realationship between the Germans and the Russians at this time, I would not be at all surprised if the antagonists did not keep such records. At the end of a war most the Western Powers attempt to break the numbers down as you have suggested and went to a lot of trouble doing so for their own soldiers (as they do in all wars). If however some Nations did not do so in World War II, that should not be refelected in these articles is all I am saying. We should put in at least KIA in the causualties and not lump them all togehter as ~850,000 which I think that is less than useful. --PBS 16:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans did attempt to break down these numbers, but for understandable reasons their reporting system broke down. It became unreliable beyond November 1944, and pretty much non-existent beyond March 1945. I agree the 850,000 number is not really helpful, since it does include all the POW taken after surrender, and to get an idea of the combat history for this battle it should only include the (almost certainly much lower) number of casualties up to the surrender. In that case I think the best that can be done at this stage is to enter "unknown" for the German side with a footnote that most men on strength of Army Group Centre were taken POW during the battle and after surrender. Andreas 08:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Geneva Convention (1929)#Capture and Disarmed Enemy Forces stating that they were "captured" is probably not accurate. --PBS (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in the totals by Soviets were the many ethnic Germans fleeing from Hungary and Moravia/Bohemia, etc. on suspicion of being military personnel that discarded their uniforms. I remember seeing a photo in a book and wondering why there were people in the typical prisoner column who did not have one item of military uniform on them. Discarding the uniform was tantamount to desertion and was punishable by death with immediate execution. SS were shooting anyone they suspected of doing this. Are these also KIAs? I know there were "hundreds" if not more, but again, this can not be substantiated as in Berlin and elsewhere.
Geneva Convention doesn't help. I need not tell you how many Waffen-SS personnel were in Prague. I can almost guarantee that they were all captured, but then again, the vast majority were also the "casualties". Maybe we can change to "casualties, prisoners and captured". I doubt the number of KIA vs WIA will ever be known. In the SS units the KIA count would have been substantially higher which makes 'accounting' that much harder.
Just on the rough side, assuming a "light" resistance despite Soviet claims to the contrary, casualties would have been at least 10% of the prisoner tally, or 85,000. If the Soviet sources are to be used, then the Axis casualties were as high as 40% of the prisoner tally, or 340,000. However, this is not even original research, but utter speculation!--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 14:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happens to the POW after taken in captivie is not of importance under "castualties" and the deathrate should absolutely not affec the numbers of "killed" or "dead". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.74.215 (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the book "The Road to Berlin", by John Erickson, it is said that 859,000 men of the Army Group Center surrendered to the Red Army during the Prague Offensive, as the german casualties was written before, it was told that 850.000 where either killed or captured, a number that tells very little about the ratio of killed versus captured. If 859.000 men where captured (a number that however most likely also include rear service-units), what can the number of killed reasonably be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.74.215 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


i'm going to guess that this discussion is why the term "irrecoverable" is used in the Losses section. i didn't actually read the entire discussion here, but enough to glean it was about the number of casualties, disputes on that figure/s, and how to classify certain "participants" of the battles and aftermaths. ("participants" seeming to mean, from my quick read, anyone in the area.) but just to let y'all know--the term "irrecoverable" is vague and confusing to a general reader.Colbey84 (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General Vlasov[edit]

The link given to the Soviet commander is wrong. It leads to a site about the traitor Vlasov, who early in the war got captured by Germany and then worked FOR Nazi Germany.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thestor (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Prague Strategic Offensive Operation[edit]

RFC: renaming Prague Offensive to Strategic Offensive Operation[edit]

Any objections if this article is moved to Prague Strategic Offensive Operation? This is the full name of the operation, and represents its strategic nature as opposed to operational sub-parts of it which are termed offensive operations (sometimes army offensive operations). I'd like to get this usage applied consistently across the range of Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is misleading, in fact, every operation is strategic. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Some are operational in nature due to having more limited goals and objectives. There are also tactical operations, but there were far too many of them, and there is enough to do with the strategic and operational operations before the tactical are addressed--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would object, See the section above #Prague Offensive Operation and WP:MILMOS#NAME (and "common name" means common name in English! see WP:NC) --PBS (talk)
With all due respect what you actually mean is common name in 1950s-60s English when much of the Eastern Front history was described by the Battles of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. History, and historiography moves one Philip, and in trying to provide a reference to the Wikipedia readers we would want, I presume, to provide them with a source that follows contemporary best practice rather then publishing editorialship standards of 50 years ago. The name Prague Offensive is neither common, not correct given it can mean anything if left anyqualified. However, may I suggest that anyone actually referring to the article is likely to be interested in the subject beyond the two-word title, so if the article intro describes this to have been a strategic operation, and that these words are added to the title because they fully reflect the name given by the Soviet sources, introduce consistency of the Eastern Front operations, most undocumented or named from German sources, and the name any military professional would use, then, although I may be transgressing the "sin" of not using common English, I may also be the person advancing better use of English as a means of describing what it is exactly the article deals with. In an age when the vocabulary of the average school child is claimed to be declining, a little overuse of English above the "common" may not go astray.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. We do not have to impose the over-formal long form Soviet operation names in the titles of the articles. It's never been common English practice. By all means, add them to infoboxs, headers, etc, but 'Berlin Offensive' or Prague, or whatever, is much better, and has much more English historical use, than 'Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation'. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Google Book and Scholar returns 1 hit (a book "Armies of the Bear Volume 1 Part 3" (Page 15)) for "Prague Strategic Offensive Operation" a web search returns 6, 2 are from the same book "Armies of the Bear", 2 from a forum and 2 from Wikipedia and Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II I Corps (Czechoslovakia) the last of which is badly in need of a clean up. In contrast there are "68 English pages for "Battle of Prague" 1945 -wikipedia." and "105 of 105 English pages for "Prague Offensive" 1945 -wikipedia" which is not exactly common but it is fifty times more common that "Prague Strategic Offensive Operation". Also mrg3105, I do not watch all the pages that could be renamed "Soviet Strategic Offensive ..." and it does not make sense to have this debate on every page, so please keep this page as a clearing house for such debates. I am going to post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Soviet Stratigic Operations to seek the opinions of more editors. --PBS (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Philip, let me explain how it worked.
In the beginning, during the war, there was only an idea about BIG victories or defeats. During the War everything that related to the Eastern Front was known as the "Battle of".
During the early Cold War, as the West tried to understand the nature of Soviet victory in the East, and to emphasise the expected offensive nature of the Soviet regime, the Reds in common English of the time, everything was changed from the "Battle of" to the Offensive, largely derived from the first memoirs of former German service personnel. Usually they were "massive offensives".
From the late 70s, when some people actually learned Russian and started to question the German rendition of the Eastern Front, they begun to read Soviet literature, compare it to the German memoirs, and provide analysis. What was 1st, 2nd and 3rd battles of Vyazma (for example) for Germans turned out to be parts of different, and sometimes unrelated operations, which need not have had Vyazma as their objective, but Vyazma happened to be the major centre in an are of combat the size of Kent. Among the pioneers was John Erickson, a British military historian. Rather then writing books titled "Battle of Berlin" or "Battle of Stalingrad", he named his "the road to Stalingrad". This notion that maybe there was a Soviet point of view of the war became more important when NATO decided they will want to fight a conventional war if it came to it after all. All of a sudden actual military officers had to understand how Soviet doctrine worked (John Erickson was also a teacher to the MoD), and they found that by and large, outside of employment of the nuclear weapons, the doctrine was largely based, unsurprisingly, on the experience of the Second World War. The first to do a deep and thorough analysis on this was the late Brigadier Richard Simpkin. Though more a theoretician and not a historian, his books are largely based on the analysis of the Soviet publications. In the USA, a few years later, Colonel David Glantz went further by conducting several symposiums that included participation by former German and Soviet officers in analysis of the Soviet way of war. As you will appreciate, by then they had discovered that what was called the "Battle of Stalingrad" was in fact a huge strategic undertaking, made complex by combat and non-combat operations, and itself a composite of several of them, of which the actual battle for, or in the city of Stalingrad was but a part, and a smaller one at that, involving mostly one or two Armies as opposed to the final encirclement operation that involved three Fronts.
Now, unsurprisingly you will find more references to the Battle of Stalingrad because there are more older books, and because in English books are published to attract readers, including by its title. For example the late Brigadier Richard Simpkin's "Race to the swift" is a title I'm sure came from the publisher's editor. To the writer it was a book better titled "Management of combat force in application to operational tempo, flow and dynamics", but alas it doesn't roll of the tongue. John Erickson's classic two volume opus was, and is, probably the best work that summarises the very scientific approach Soviet historians take to the history of the Eastern Front, Great Patriotic War to them. Considering that most of the Soviet participants were still alive, and holding high posts in the Soviet military, works in Soviet Union had to be right, and detailed, unlike in the West where what sold was generally drama of war (see German accounts). Much later German historians also begun to publish more serious works. Unfortunately the Wehrmacht was mostly on defensive for much of the war, so only the really big strategic operations got names. Anything carried out at Army level was simply known for the major city in the AO, hence Battle of Baranovichy is unheard of in English because it was a tactical, though major engagement; Battle of Kiev, one and two, are heard of, however only the first is known for the encirclement during 1941, and not the one for liberation, because the second one was just another major operation (#44 on the list) that took place at the close of 1943, and had an offensive and a defensive phase. In fact the spreadsheet I work of doesn't say strategic for any operation. The understanding is implicit that if an operation encompasses large areas, and takes three months to plan and execute, involving several smaller operations, it must be more strategically significant.
My Soviet list has 73 GPW strategic operations which include some 190 smaller operational entries (including Manchuria). David Glantz (Col., ret.) had added to these some operations (the smaller kind) which he thought Soviet historians omitted for various reasons, hence the actual total s over 200.
As a reference work, Wikipedia provides reference for a large number if distinct items usually dealt with in books on the subject inclusively. For example there are many books on Trafalgar (battle of), but few books on the individual vessels that took part, never mind their captains. In Wikipedia the editors are free to enlarge the scope of subject coverage by adding articles, and therefore providing higher level of detail of reference. It seems to me that what I'm proposing is not very different.
There was a Prague Strategic Offensive operation. There was also an operational phase that called for an offensive advance by some troops directly towards Prague, as opposed to the flanks of the Front, or the Armies that sealed off the encirclement. Finally there was the Offensive into Prague, an operation largely tactical in nature as cities are taken sector by sector, where coordination of command above the division often breaks down due to the inherent complexities of urban warfare. So you see my dilemma with an article named "Prague Offensive" I hope. In the intro the article will still have to say that this was either a: strategic, an operational or a tactical offensive operation depending on the content, and regardless of the name used 30, 40 or 50 years ago. This is because Wikipedia is a reference work, and although sometimes the use of the common English name is essential, sometimes, it is just the reverse, being counter-productive to the objective of providing a reference.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but it still seems unneccesarily complex and convoluted to use the title you propose, when the current title is much easier. Surely it is enough to use it in the infoboxes and perhaps in the aryicle itself? Skinny87 (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. The article, for our purposes, covers all the subops the strategic operation covered, listed in the page, has the Soviet official names listed, but, for general English readibility and history, does not need to have the full complex Soviet title as the title. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complexity of the title is not an issue in a reference work. A reference work is intended to provide information on a discretely identifiable subject. As I have illustrated above, in this case, and in the case of all military operations, full and comprehensive titling of the article is required to avoid disambiguation. The use of common English names in the case of military operations is not as readily applicable as in the case of other applications because there is a far higher possibility of multiple use of parts of the article title identifiers in several subjects - namely the use of "Battle of". The unqualified use of "Offensive" assumes same undesirable ambiguity.
For example there may be an article on John Carmichael, another on Lord Carmichael of Carmichael, and yet another on the John Carmichael (11th Baron) Lord Carmichael of Carmichael to identify the discrete subject though the most common current English use would probably be Lord Carmichael, since there is only one at any one time (see Earl of Hyndford).
In the same way the four words used in the Prague Strategic Offensive Operation form the unique subject identifiers in this, and every other case of military operations. The overly-generous use of the "Battle of" is a very poor English usage in reference works, particularly online, even if they are used in the source materials. This was realised back in the 1970s by no lesser a persons then the Dupuys, and no lesser a publisher then Jane's in their The Encyclopedia of Military History where in the index of battles the "battle of" is omitted. Given that Wikipedia search produces same results as that of a book index, and that the geographic reference remains a primary one, and that in English the expression "Prague Battle" is not acceptable, it seems to me that there is little call for persisting with poor editorial practice, and less then useful article titling.
The most obvious case, but one I do not intend to argue, is that of the very many books that bear the title of "The Battle of Waterloo", but usually must include the description of what has become known as the Hundred Days campaign. This is a later invention that even commoners like Sergeant Major E. Cotton did not use in his memoirs published many years after the events. In modern parlance Wellington's command would be a strategic operation, and it was, charged with occupation of the former French Empire in cooperation with other allied forces due to persistent rumours of Napoleon's return that proved to be correct; the use of his command would be a part of the Allied campaign to defeat returned Napoleon, what the Hundred Days refer to; What is currently described in that article as the Waterloo Campaign was in fact an allied Grand Tactical (operational) manoeuvre that included several tactical engagements, of which Waterloo was one - a defensive position as Cotton says on several occasions. This is important because if it was called a Waterloo Defensive Tactical Battle (1815), it may contrast more readily with Battle of Leipzig which was the Leipzig Strategic Offensive Operation (1813) that involved manoeuvres of three Allied Armies over several days as opposed to two Corps (including Prussians) over half-a-day. Not that his diminishes the outcome, but it does put events into perspective. Waterloo was not a part of the campaign planning (to my knowledge) when news of Napoleon's return was received, nor even during the manoeuvring for position when Mont St.Jean was a point of refrence with the Prussian Staff, and the campaign was not intended to be completed in 100 days either as many have observed the period from landing near Antibes on 1 March 1815 to even Waterloo on 18 June 1815 to be 109 days long. What is more, the operation itself was not particularly expected and for this reason Wellington found himself well short of troops for the task of facing Napoleon, who's reputation preceded him.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Yes Mrg, but you are talking from a Russian perspective. The term 'X Offensive,' in English, covers all the implications of 'campaign' or 'strategic offensive operation' and does it in a way that accords with English common usage. Your arguments are not relevant for English, which would be seriously bent out of shape by translating the Russian terms straight across - complexity of the title is the key issue we're discussing. We are not trying to say the Ru-wiki articles should be shortened to 'X Offensive'; please don't try to expand the En-wiki ones to 'X Strategic Offensive Operation.' I think your edit summary sums it up: 'there is little call for persisting with .. less than useful article titling' - and the 'less than useful' titles in this case would be when you try and tack on 'Strategic Offensive Operation' to a perfectly servicable 'Berlin (or Prague or whatever) Offensive'. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it my fault that the British Army, and the US Army had so few strategic offensives that they never adopted a more sane system of referring to them?! In any case, I am not talking from a Russian perspective, but from a perspective of a historian. Where there are several possible events that can be called Prague Offensive, they need to be disambiguated. If you are so clever, then maybe you can make suggestions for the examples I gave above?
  • Prague Strategic Offensive operation
  • an operational phase that called for an offensive advance by some troops directly towards Prague
  • the Offensive into Prague, an operation largely tactical in nature
I also fail to see the "complexity" of using four words as opposed to two. Is there some binary guideline I am not aware of? In any case, there is no en-Wiki and ru-Wiki since the two are one and the same in different languages, remember? I think you are puzzled why I take such an effort to get the titles correct, but please understand that if the article of a reference work can not correctly identify the subject, what hope is there for the content? This happens to be a core principle in commercial data integrity; the reason no one questions your identity at the bank--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One wiki in two different languages each with its own conventions. The US and British Armies, and Western historians in general talk about 'campaigns'(a la the Normandy Campaign, or the campaign in the Desert), and calling the Berlin or Prague ops 'the Berlin Campaign' or the 'Prague Campaign' would actually be the preferred title. But because en-wiki has to accomodate the wishes of Russian speakers who try to directly translate terms into English, without being aware of the nuances of the English language, I'm not pressing hard for that, merely a compromise that is not best-case. I do not expect to get met with iron insistence on trying to impose Russian usages on English, I expect to get met with some compromise. Yet you continue to insist, one against the majority's views, all of which, as far as I can see, are native English-speakers, and you're the Russian speaker trying to impose your view on the En-wiki side of the encyclopaedia. I would kindly ask you to accept the compromise: neither 'Berlin Campaign,' not 'Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation,' but 'Berlin Offensive,' which works in English and and retains some of the flavour of the Russian term -even the exact transliteration. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the Eastern Front is although it would be sane to call some of the battles campaigns our hands are tied by common usage. Fore example the Battle for Berlin should in a sane ordering be called the Berlin Campaign and the battle within the Berlin Defensive Area the Battle of Berlin, but we can not do that because of popular usage that calls the Campaign the Battle of Berlin. --PBS (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also talk:Battle of Memel#Renaming article about Battle of Memel/Memel Offensive Operation --PBS (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a problem of a Non neutral point of view if the name of a campaign, battle etc is named after the name used by one side. Using a specific Soviet name for an operation can in the words of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Naming conventions "only represent one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other)." At least with just "offensive" there is less chance that the article will read from a Soviet point of view than with "offensive operation". In most cases were the term "offensive operation" is used in histories to describe a battle or campaign with no other name, the chances are that it is mentioned in less than half a dozen books on a Google Books search, in which case it can be argued that "If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "battle of X" or "siege of Y", where X and Y are the locations of the operations" (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Naming conventions). Now I do not think we need to stick to the letter of this guideline, but we should follow the spirit of it, so to use this article as an example using "Prague Offensive" instead of "Prague Offensive Operation" is preferable, although we should perhaps consider changing it to Prague offensive making it a descriptive name and not a title.--PBS (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The insanity of the Battle of Berlin is that even the Germans use that name only for the combat in Berlin. Half of all books titled variously "Battle of Berlin" perforce must discuss the rest of the strategic operation (not a campaign). This is an approach that is unjustified in a reference work which deals with as many distinct identifiable notable subjects as is practicable. In fact the name "Battle of Berlin" severely restricts use of it in a reference work.
Neutral view does not apply to this military operations, as was already discussed in the Talk:Jassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation. Quite simply one can, and must have a non-neutral point of view because the entire objective of any military operation is to formulate a plan designed to be extremely prejudicial to the other side!
In the case of the strategic operations, and all military events at this level are operations rather then "battles", the words are all parts of the descriptive. They are needed because within the article the activities of the German troops will be described as Prague defensive operations, although they were no longer strategic in the purely military sense, but in political sense.
I had asked David Glantz about creating a German historiography where none exists, and he agreed that this is a good idea. For the most part there is no German point of view on the many Soviet offensives, but only sketchy "Battles of" named for significant cities. There are vast time and space periods and areas of the Eastern Front that are completely lacking in English coverage, or German for that matter, which is the objective of the project. All I would like to do is maintain the article naming consistency.
As I see it the strict adherence to the "common English" guideline in titles is counter-productive in the case of the military operations because these are often named without adherence to naming conventions of participants, and not only introduce bias, political is history of Cold war's effect on Easten Front history is considered, but distort history, such as the Third Battle of Kharkov which bears no relationship to the 1st Battle of Kharkov other then the fact that in two years the city of Kharkov remained in the same place!
In any case, the naming convention is a guideline, which as I see it in this case, only barely applies, and is certainly more counter-productive to development of the history of the Eastern Front in Wikipedia as a reference then the objectives pursued by book publishers 50, 40 or even 30 years ago. If you wish it, I am happy to take this discussion to the MilHist or even Wikipedia naming conventions, but I would say this is unnecessary. I, and other participants try to rename articles to better reflect their utility for potential users. I appreciate that some names for operations are strongly entrenched in the English language military history literature, even if for the wrong reasons, and we seek to accommodate them as best as possible. It seems to me that using the correct translation of a historical event in English is the appropriate course of action within the guidelines and spirit of Wikipedia, and I dare say that most users are not burdened by having to read four words rather then two or three, and would expect as full a treatment of the subjects as practicable in a reference work.
It seems to me that there is some application of naming convention in using most common English name with is not appropriate, or applicable when creating a reference work because while book publishers often seek to cover a multitude of subjects within one volume, the goal of Wikipedia is quite the obverse in seeking to cover as many diverse subjects in separate entries.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? Jassy-Kishinev was a compromise that had nothing to do with English usage and everything to do with Romanian usage with the outcome being German usage. I do not believe in compromises, and the results speak for themselves.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the reasons for the change: ""Jassy-Kishinev Operation" is the most popular English name, with 41 Google Books hits." at least one well known lurker of WP:RM gave that as the reason he selected that name which is in line with Wikipedia policy which would seem to be a reasonable reason for making that choice. --PBS (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put in an RFC on this as I think we need more editors to express their opinions. --PBS (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC responses[edit]

Askari Mark: While I sympathize with mrg3105’s to rationalize names of military operations in consistent, clear and meaningful terms, I’m afraid that with respect to Wikipedia he is pushing the cart before the horse. Being familiar with the writings of Dr. Erickson and Col. Glantz, with whom I had the pleasure to have discussions back in the 1980s, and somewhat so those of Brigadier Simpson, I’m well aware that Soviet military historians and theoreticians were the first (and still, for the most part, only) ones to attempt such a rigorous definition. However, while their collective efforts have greatly extended the Western appreciation of the Soviet approach, their system has made little or no inroads into military historiography in the English-speaking world. For Wikipedia to attempt to impose it, however laudable that might be in principle, is beyond its charter and runs into three serious challenges in any case.

First is the fact that the typical reader of an encyclopedia has at best a very weak understanding of “strategy” and “tactics” in general, so such serious and unfamiliar terminology as the “Prague Strategic Offensive Operation” would make their eyes glaze over. Just seeing that in their search results wouldn’t tell them whether it was about the invasion in 1945 or 1968. Nor, as I will outline in my third point, is there much to be found in Wikipedia to help them clue themselves in.

Second, despite the best efforts of Mssrs. Erickson, Glantz, Simpson, et al, much of the Soviet terminology and application remains rather opaque and confusing even to relatively knowledgeable (but non-specialist) students of military history. Moreover, a systematic reliance on Soviet naming practices tends to come off as POVish, and practically begs for edit wars between the most hawkish. This approach also produces naming examples like the “Fourth strategic offensive” which lacks any cognate with something most English-speaking non-specialists would recognize.

Third and unfortunately (though more susceptible to remedy within Wikipedia), the general lack of Western literacy with respect to military concepts such as strategy, operational art, and tactics is fully reflected in their respective articles in Wikipedia. The general confusion between “operations” and “operational level of war” is little more than alluded to before being shrugged off as being an unfortunate example of the Soviets’ “rigid formalism, and [penchant for] categorising everything possible”. And don’t even bother to look for articles on “strategic offensive operations” or “Operational Maneuver Group” or “Soviet military doctrine”; the latter exists as a truly pitiful subsection in Military doctrine. Heaven forefend that we should ever have an article titled “XYZ Operational Offensive Operation”.

In short, even if there was a general consensus in favor of employing the Soviet historiographical approach, there’s a great deal of work to be done first in essential articles about general military theoretics and terminology; to do otherwise would be a disservice to the general reader.

My recommendation is that the titles employed should be relatively simple, clear and familiar to the general English-speaking reader. That helps them find the article they want in the first place; once they get there, we can provide them with the resources and references to learn all they want. In the case of this particular article, I would recommend a title along the lines of “Prague Offensive of 1945” or “Prague Offensive (1945)” or even “Prague Strategic Offensive. This approach of including the year of the operation is a useful deconfliction with any location name that has been the target of multiple conflicts. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with AskariMark. I would support the Prague Offensive (1945) varient. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
we only need "(year)" disambiguation if there is another article named "Prague Offensive" in another year. As none exists (yet) we do not need a "(year)" disambiguation until one is written. --PBS (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, no, we don’t need such a dab. However, for many people the significance between “Battle of Prague” and “Prague Offensive” is negligible. In fact, typical readers are more likely to search on the former than the latter. I’m unaware that there is a “standard” name for this attack; I’ve seen both used, as well as the “Prague Campaign”. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the upshot of this RfC is that because the current state of reference material in Wikipedia is poor, and because the expected ability of the English-speaking user is also negligible, the title needs to be dumbed down to as lower a common denominator as possible? Please pardon me Askari Mark for not thanking you for coming to this conclusion.
The general lack of Western literacy with respect to military concepts such as strategy and other concepts you mentioned will eventually hopefully be rectified, however it became obvious that it is somewhat difficult to write articles on the subject in its modern interpretation when the many examples of them are missing. In nay case I have not seen much in the way of contribution from the relevant task force in recent months, and there is only so much I can do.
I largely disagree with your comments, not because they contradicts my arguments, but because I see your points as being largely against the Wikipedia purpose and the reason for being - to educate--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful about carping about involvement of specific people or task forces; the project, and the TFs, are designed to serve the editors, not the other way around. As we all know, people will write only on what they're interested in writing about, only when they interested in writing! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we should assume, even when these articles for the specialist terms are fully written & perfect, that the average person will want to wade though all of them which he/she is seeking simply some information about the war on the Eastern Front? We are writing for the average reader, not the specialist; they should not have to read the precursor articles to get the benefit (or be referred) to these operations. Thus the simpler titles are better. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can carp on anything I like because if someone puts their name down for a task force there is some expectation of them being active some of the time in some of the articles. God knows I stray from the objective I set myself, but I do get back on the task at hand.
Actually there is no need to assume who it is that reads Wikipedia. There is no statistical "image" of an average reader in any case with reference to any particular article, or even root categories. There is however on average an expectation that a reference work will be correct as far as research makes it possible. To this end the use of obsolete references for article titles are not the best practice in editorialship regardless how attached Philip may be to them. Referring to everything as the "Battle of" has gone out of fashion a long time ago, and in the early 90s when I was at university the average student doing the average history of 20th century was not expected to call everything "Battle of". There is absolutely no rule on discarding words from title because it may make it more comprehensible to the reader, and in fact the use of "Battle of" is to be discourages since by using it as the first-place identifier the reader is forced to wade through all the "Battles of" in the search, so the use of place-name is the first word is to be encouraged. With regards to using complicated long words like strategic and operation, these are words used commonly in news stories, and most people even with only the basic idea of their military application will still understand their purpose where as the word offensive on its own does not tell the reader anything new since the expectation is that in a war, someone will be on the offensive!
I have thought about this, and I am not prepared to compromise on what I see as historically and qualitatively appropriate usage in article titling which is only being opposed with an argument based on the assumption of the mental capacity of the "average" Wikipedia reader. As an online and free reference work the Wikipedia is not restricted to usage of names chosen by editors of published commercial works which neither reflect the nature of the subject, nor are supported by sources, and which counter the intent of referencing by being overly generalising rather then specific. Consider the "Battle of Kursk" which is neither a battle, nor about Kursk, and Kursk does not even begin to tell the reader where the "battle" took place. Where as a book can afford to spend a chapter on the introduction to how four Soviet fronts were arrayed around the Kursk oblast, a reference article can hardly repeat the feat. Yes, in some cases the common English name is the way to go, but this does not mean a universal and absolute adherence to this guideline. There is nothing in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide that specifically prohibits direct translations of operational names if these exist. There is every reason to do it to increase Wikipedia reliability in providing accurate data where an older reference source may have provided an event name which was created for lack of available research at the time, e.g. 1950s-60s lack of awareness of Soviet operational names. We do for example call a tank unit with heavy tanks a XXth Breakthrough tank regiment and not a "KV-1 tank unit" was may be found in older books that used German memoirs. This is called better research, and updating knowledge of the subject as it becomes available. Other disciplines do it also. What used to be called "bile", is now known as "salts sodium glycocholate and sodium taurocholate". I dare say the "average" reader will be more challenged by these terms then those I propose, and intend on using.
Unless those now participating here now want to take this to a project consensus discussion, I would appreciate if those present please accept my implementation of the consistent article naming through the Eastern Front project based on best practice and consultation with acknowledged authority on the subject.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I for one won't accept that, and would be willing to go to the next level of a project consensus discussion. Skinny87 (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will you allow yourself to register the situation? You have three other editors all telling you that straight translation of the Russian official terms are inappropriate for the En-wiki, and you're still telling us you want to implement the Russian scheme? We disagree, and will not accept you doing so(!) Buckshot06 (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mrg3105, while I respect your purpose and sympathize with it to a degree, I suppose you’ll also not thank me for suggesting you read WP:OWN and WP:CON. As the latter explicitly points out, “Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process”, and an attitude of “I am not prepared to compromise” is manifestly not consonant with that policy. The points I raised, therefore, are indeed not “largely against the Wikipedia purpose and the reason for being - to educate”; rather, the general points of my commentary are very much in support of the educational objectives of Wikipedia. The main difference in our perspective is that I perceive Wikipedia as what it is – a general encyclopedia as opposed to a product directed solely to scholars.
While the Soviet approach is certainly more rationally structured and consistent than traditional Western approaches, that does not in of itself commend it to general usage. Indeed, inasmuch as you deprecate older forms of terminology, then that objection works against the employment of Soviet military theory and terminology since it dates primarily to the 1920s and the Soviet Union is itself rather quaint and passé. In any case, I don’t see that there’s any demand to name everything “Battle of X”; the point has rather been to employ names recognizable to the average English-speaking reader. “Battle of Kursk” is very recognizable (and, yes, it does indeed give the reader a clue as to where the "battle" took place); following proper Soviet usage, the extant article would properly be broken into several articles which would leave the average reader more confused than enlightened. By starting with the extant article, however, that reader can start with a framework he generally understands (from his limited reading of popular literature on the subject) and from which he can be enticed to learn more – insofar as Wikipedia provides insight into them – of the Soviet perspective. Your preferred approach demands that students skip undergraduate education and proceed directly into graduate – or post-graduate – curriculum. Even if this were desirable, there would still remain the issue of whether the Soviet “curriculum” should be used – as opposed to the development, perhaps, of an alternative, more comprehensive, modern, and flexible one. I have yet to see any discernable evidence that the Soviet historiographical approach has become preferentially and universally adopted as the primary pedagogical framework for modern military historiography, much less that of military theoretics. If you want to champion it, then the burden is upon you to provide evidence that this is so; otherwise, it’s just your preference – to wit, your POV. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll take it to the project for consensus discussion.
For the record, there was a !@#$%^& Battle of Kursk. In fact there were two !@#$%^& battles. On the 4 November 1941, when Kursk was taken by German troops, and 8 February 1943 when it was retaken by Soviet troops as part of the Kharkov Offensive Operation (Operation Zvezda) which some moron had previously called the "3rd Battle of Kharkov". So how is that for informing the reader? Misinforming is ALL this achieves! Yes Buckshot06, Skinny87 and Askari Mark, you will have to accept that history is fairly hard to rewrite, however, lets see how the rest of the project members go about this.
Askari Mark, before you start pointing me to !@#$%^& guidelines, you may want to consider reading history. That is what the articles are for, to provide a reference for readers on history, right? Or is it your desire that the World should be educated in Wikipedia guidelines first?
Buckshot06, if you struggle with Russian-isms, just don't read them! See if anyone else has a problem with them also. The operation was named so, and it was so named with no consideration for English readers, bad luck. If you think that English readers can't get over a four word title for a reference article, I suggest you get a degree in education and go teach them to read. In fact I am damn tired of you following me around with you anal comments. It is as close to stalking as I have ever come. Leave others something to do if I make so many mistakes--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mrg, whatever the merits or not of your arguments, please refrain from personal attacks. It does your reputation no good to be tellig people to get degrees in education, or of making anal comments, or calling the person who created the 3rd Battle of Kharkov article a moron. Doing so rather encourages me to raise more disagreements with you, not less. On substance, are you telling me I should not edit or read articles on the Eastern Front? That's perilously close to what you're saying, I think, which seems ridiculous. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly something has to be done, as at the moment we've got the Battle for Kharkov, the Struggle for Kharkov, the redirect Third Battle of Kharkiv just to make things really interesting, and so on. It's enough to make my head spin, and I've read plenty of books on the subject. Clearly the (number) battle of (wherever) system isn't good enough, and practically useless for describing Soviet offensives (indeed I suspect in the case of Kharkov it probably originates with von Manstein, and has just been copied ever since by 'popular' works of history.) The Eastern Front's a big subject area, and needs pretty rigorous organisation if it's not to get confusing for the average reader. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm broadly agreeing with mrg3105 on this one, as it strikes me there's a danger that we could end up creating new titles for events simply to avoid using a Soviet one. I can see there's an argument that a few actions have common English names (usually deriving originally from one or two traslated German memoirs, but that's another matter) but in reality very few Eastern Front actions are at all differentiated in Western accounts. If they have been, then it's often as the result of the modern research of Glantz et al. who use the Soviet naming conventions themselves. Do we really want to rely on the old historiography - the one that usually characterised the Soviet forces as 'red hordes'? I think not.
Just editing my own comment - it should be added that redirects can always be used in the case of alternative names. Cf. Operation Citadel / Battle of Kursk (one of the few instances where there is, I admit, a very established English name, even if it is one that represents the actual events rather poorly). Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Battle of Memel'[edit]

My involvement with this so far has been concerned with the Memel Offensive Operation, one of a variety of articles I've recently (re)written. In this case, I disagree with its recent revert to Battle of Memel, for a variety of reasons:

  • There's no real evidence that "Battle of Memel" is a common phrase in English - Google Books gives only two occurrences, neither of which of have anything to do with the 1944 action. The article's original creator provided no rationale for naming it as such, and neither did the editor making the recent revert other than citing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Naming conventions. There was a siege, or blockade, of Memel, but it was - well, merely an outcome of the Memel Offensive Operation. Both this and the lack of any proven English name invalidates the application of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Naming conventions here, I think.
  • The article's narrative, as I expanded it, is largely about the deployment of elements of the 1st Baltic Front, and their advance, during the Memel Offensive Operation - a Soviet military operation of which the city of Memel was one of the objectives. Much of the remainder of the operation took place to the south and east of the town - its scope extended as far southwards as the Neman. This means that 'Battle of Memel', while giving a vague idea of the geographic scope, is inaccurate.
  • In favour of 'Memel Offensive Operation', it's referred to as such in both Glantz and (in translation) Krivosheev.

I think there has to be a test of reasonableness here, which has wider application to all related articles. 'Battle of Memel' is neither terribly descriptive of the action the article covers, nor is there any evidence to suggest it's commonly used in English. Indeed, I think it constitutes OR to refer to it as such. There is, however, a strong argument for using the soviet nomenclature (or a variant of it such as 'Memel Offensive'). Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would support Memel Offensive rather than Battle of Memel. It's when things get to the point of 'Lower Dneiper Strategic Offensive Operation' that I'm concerned about. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All"?[edit]

100%? Not a single German soldier fled, dropped his uniform, and marched home? Come on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The map is bad. Why should a WW2 era Map show the 1948 (and not even correctly, both german states were declared in 1949) borders? It should either show the political borders from after the invasion of Poland or the pre-war borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.210.148 (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian POWs[edit]

This edit by user:Jaan on 20 July 2009 added a sentence:

The local Czech population resumed their hostilities on the surrendered Waffen SS troops regardless of their intentions. In what the veterans of the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) who had laid their weapons down in May 1944, recall as the 'Czech Hell', the local people chased, humiliated and tortured the Waffen SS troopers and murdered more than 500 Estonian POWs.

Since then it has been slightly alerted but the substance remain the same. When it was added four citations were given. Does this one sentence need four citation, or could they be replaced with one? -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, four sources are definitely needed. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. There is no question the claim is exceptional; 500 POWs murdered by the "good guys." Even in war time this is exceptional. Even these sources may be questioned; if not unreliable, then at least not neutral. If we had access to other sources written with less admiration for these heroic freedom fighters in SS uniform, the story might get a totally different spin. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hiio & Kaasik would do as the prime reference for the statement, however, it does not feature the number of deaths. The White Book is the prime source for the number of documented deaths. The rest of the sources are, perhaps, of secondary importance. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor belligerents[edit]

Can anyone elaborate on this? I am wondering what the role of the US consisted in (except taking prisoners), and which source describes that. I admit there are some lacunae in my education, but, if no sources and explanations will be provided, I will have to revert that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This perhaps? Srnec (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source says that "Eisenhower ordered American forces to halt at the Karlovy Vary - Plzen - Ceska Budejovice line". Although some American units broke his order, I see no evidence that they participated in the Prague offensive proper, i.e. that they attacked Schörner's group in Prague.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since no evidences have been provided that the US army advanced far beyond the Karlovy Vary - Plzen - Ceska Budejovice line (a line that goes near South-West Czech border, I doubt the US can be considered as a participant of the battle.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Prague Offensive" suggests more than just a battle for a city to most English readers. If the Americans were advancing on Prague in Czechoslovak territory simultaneous with a Soviet advanced from the other direction, and if the Americans and Soviets were allies, the reasonable reader may ask why the American action does not constitute a part, however small, of the "Prague Offensive", or why we do not have an article on American operations in Czechoslovak territory. Now, I am aware that this is not how the term "Prague Offensive" is used, but then it is not used very much (in English). The term "operation" would seem better than "offensive", but I'm not sure it is used. Srnec (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however, you considerations can be equally applied to, e.g. the Battle of Berlin. The Americans were advancing on Berlin in German territory simultaneously with the Soviets, and they were the allies. However, they definitely didn't participate in the battle proper. Going back to Prague, the Karlovy Vary - Plzen - Ceska Budejovice line goes along Czech south-west border, and the Americans did stop at this line (similar to Elbe in Germany).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that advancing on X would seem to most English-speakers to constitute an "X offensive", however limited, but a battle of/for X is just some fighting, however intense, in and around X. I don't think that anybody would expect that advancing in the direction of Berlin means you fought in the Battle of Berlin, but I do think people would expect that if you crossed the border advancing in the direction of Prague you were engaged in the Prague Offensive. My point was that "Prague Offensive" might not be the ideal name for this operation. Srnec (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karlovy Vary of Ceska Budejovice are too far from Prague to claim that they were around Prague. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that the Americans engaged in any fighting around Prague or in the battle for Prague, or for that matter in the so-called Prague Offensive. I'm saying that the name "Prague Offensive" strikes me as overblown for the action it describes, if indeed it is basically only about the battle in and around Prague over a few days. Perhaps it makes more sense in Russian. Srnec (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The name is "Prague offensive", not "Czech offensive". The distance from Berlin to Elbe is similar to the distance from Prague to Plzen. In both cases the Americans were advancing to Prague and Berlin, acordingly, and stopped at considerable distances. Why are you comfortable with "The Battle of Berlin", and are uncomfortable with "Prague offensive"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because of everything you've said: "Battle of Prague" is a more intuitive name for this operation in English, although it doesn't appear to be used much. Srnec (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are right. Try to propose article's renaming. I'll support it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the names that are commonly used in English language sources. The trouble is that there are not many sources so the name was chosen based on the Soviet name (See above #Prague Offensive Operation). The Soviets had specific designations to a much finer granularity than the English speaking nations for actions such as this, that was in their parlance an offensive (They also had much finer granularity for many other things eg while there is one word "pocket" to describe pockets in English, the Soviets gave them different designations depending on the size of the units enveloped a pocket/cauldron). Wikipedia uses the Battle of Berlin because it is the common English language name for what the Soviets described as the Strategic Offensive Operation (capture of East Germany) and a more minor "Offensive Operation" to capture the city of Berlin (for which I used the descriptive name Battle of Berlin#Battle in Berlin). If we were to use names that had some sort of internal consistency within Wikipedia it is doubtful if the Battle of France the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic would all be designated battles (as one is a land campaign, one an aerial campaign and the third a navel campaign (Burma Campaign, Big Week, Pacific War). all six are named as they are because those are the common names for all six. This article is about much more than the Battle for Prague, and the name "Battle of Prague" makes about as much sense as calling the "Battle of France" the "Battle of Paris". -- PBS (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite in June 2013[edit]

-- PBS (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the text noted above was addressed in the course of the article's re-write. The fate of the KONR units might bear mention as an aftermath of the offensive. I'm not so sure the different viewpoints of Bunyachenko and Vlasov are so significant as to warrant discussion in this article; the key events were the actions of the 1st Division IMO. W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the old text here because it was too large a chunk to leave as comments in the current text.
The old text said "In order to participate in the Prague Offensive, the troops of the 1st Ukrainian Front made a forced march from south of Berlin just after they had completed their participation in the Battle of Berlin." but the current text is not much better "On 1 May 1945, before Berlin was subdued, Stalin issued orders directing the 1st Belorussian Front to relieve the 1st Ukrainian Front". Not all the 1st Ukrainian Front were in Berlin. Units such as the Polish Second Army had not gone to Berlin but had gone towards Dresden and the Elbe. It was only some of the elements of the armoured spearhead that had raced to Berlin and to describe the shenanigans that went on, not only at the highest command levels, but also between armies of the 1st Belorussian Front and the 1st Ukrainian Front as "relief" does not really do credit for the way that Zhukov placed his forces between Konev's and the central district. -- PBS (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The background is cursory. For clarity, the passage in Erickson cited is At 0130 hours on 1 May he (Stalin) issued operational orders to Marshal Zhukov with 1st Belorussian Front to take up Koniev's 1st Ukrainian Front positions in Berlin and south of the city to the Lubben-Wittenberg line no later than 4 May while Koniev received categorical instructions . . . to swing his right-flank forces on to the river Mulde. Please edit the section to better reflect what occurred if more detail is called for. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, do you have a copy of the Ziemke 1969 book on Berlin to check this statement: "he was detained in Austria by German troops who handed him over to the Americans" (regarding Schörner)? Which German troops nine days after VE-Day (weren't they prisoners themselves by that date)? I see statements that U.S. troops arrested him and am wondering about the "German troops" part of this statement. Ziemke's Stalingrad to Berlin work (p. 498) mentions this occurring on 18 May and states the German troops were "1st Panzer Army" troops, citing a New York Times article of May 21, 1945 as its source. Well, okay, I guess there is a citation -- but one has to wonder considering the 1st Panzer Army (an Army Group Centre formation in eastern Bohemia on 6 May 1945) was at that time disbanded and prisoners of war of the Soviets. My guess is that Ziemke's 1969 work does not provide any citations more authoritative than the NY Times article. By comparison, the Der Spiegel article of 1955 does not mention German troops as a factor in Schörner's arrest. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have his book. Ziemke does not cite his source. However there were lots of loose Germans in southern Germany at this time. For example see the case of Otto Skorzeny who 10 days after the war ended, walked into an American depot with some soldiers under his command "The sergeant at the desk shook his head: Skorzeny's name happened to mean nothing; and he was too busy to book in prisoners. But he could provide a Jeep to take them to Salzburg; there, if they liked, they could talk about surrendering at Divisional HQ." (Commando Extraordinary by Charles Foley (1954) p. 152), so it is quite possible that Ziemke's account is accurate (even if the NYT got the unit wrong). -- PBS (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Kershaw's account today. His version states that Schörner hid out in an Alpine hut for a few days and then surrendered himself to American troops. Interesting how the narrative has changed over the years. I wonder if better information was obtained after Sch. returned from the USSR, or if the authors doubted the NYT version, or if the information from the NYT article is now simply overlooked. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

should have been more pics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bringingvalue (talk • contribs) 11:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Strange choice of words:

"And while the German command body gradually lost its centralized control over its armed forces, SS and Gestapo forces were still working at its highest intensity and efficiency. SS officers and commanders were increasingly affiliated in command and control of German armed forces, especially in Czechoslovakia. And in contrast to the declining quality of Nazi units in the last day of the war, SS corps still maintained their remarkably high fighting capability.[7]" 'efficiency' and 'high fighting capability'. Rather strange: 'fanaticism, fatalism, nihilism', surely rather more apt! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prague Offensive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American non-action[edit]

On the sector on the Prague Uprising it says Konev declined american support because it would violate the agreed borderline between US-soviet forces. What borderline was that and when was it agreed? Firestar47 (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prague_offensive&oldid=1218378205"