Jump to content

Talk:Operation Bagration

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ansleymm (talk | contribs) at 05:46, 30 January 2018 (Update HST 101 World History Since 1500 - Spring 18 assignment details). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Darkpumawins (article contribs).

Losses


The stated figures for the Soviet losses in Bagration look much much too high. If routing Army Group Centre had really cost them three quarters of a million men, then it would not at all have been viewed as a Soviet success story.

It depends how you measure success. Sovet people were expendable (and costed nothing to Stalin). Not like today, when America rises fuss over each man killed in action. Anyway, this operation was huge in territory, not like some local fight over a city. This can explain the number. Mikkalai 18:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Mikkalai, this cannot explain anything except somebody's own point of view about the subject. For everything else you should use hostorical documents. The stated figures of Soviet losses are way too high in comparison with what is stated in the existing Soviet documents. And unfortunately the same problem is observed with nearly every English-language article on the Russian military history. The Soviet sources are never used by the authors even when it is stated that they are used like it is stated here. It is hard to believe that English-speakers are more informed about Soviet/Russian losses than Russians themselves.Balalayker 10:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be more accurate, they weigh what is in the Soviet archives and try to sift what is "propaganda" or inaccurate reporting with what is known from other sources. Unfortunately, freedom of information is much more reliable in Western sources than communist or nationalist sources, in general, which were often written at the behest of the Soviet Union's political masters. There is still invaluable data in the Russian archives, and modern historians have utilized it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The stated figures for the Soviet losses in Bagration look much much too high. If routing Army Group Centre had really cost them three quarters of a million men, then it would not at all have been viewed as a Soviet success story."

Indeed. The real number was about 178000, not 770000.

What is the source for this, and when is the cut-off point? Krivosheev losses are to 29 August, so clearly cover more than just Bagration. OTOH German losses also cover a bit more, if not to the end of August, I believe. Andreas 10:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of thought is similar to "but every human life is priceless". Mikkalai explained why this point of view is inappropriate. However, I don't believe that Stalin was such a virtual psychopath. I also doubt that he had the actual paranoia. It all sounds like buzz words and labeling ill the unorthodox. By the way, don't you just love the war theory? These documents are as fun as the best computer war game.

According to Krivosheev the soviet casualties was: 178.507 KIA/MIA and 587.308 WIA/sick, total losses 765,815 -Fco

Because anybody reply, i did the change.

-Fco

That is a figure covering much more than Bagration. Andreas 10:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and now the numbers in the text don't match those in the infobox. btw, the german version of this article puts the number of casualties, without source, "according to new estimates" at 250,000 german and 500,000 soviet.

Since it covers more then just this battle I will change it back

I saw the following numbers [1]:
The actual Bagration offensive began in the morning of 22 Jun 1944 with 1,700,000 Russian troops and 6,000 armor rushing against 34 surprised German divisions, nearly achieving a 10-to-1 numerical advantage with armor and 7-to-1 with aircraft. The German lines fell apart quickly, and Minsk fell under Russian control on 3 Jul, capturing 50,000 prisoners of war. Ten days later, Russian troops reached the Polish border. By the end of Jul 1944, the entire Army Group Center ceased to exist, losing 300,000 men to death and 120,000 to capture. Over 2,000 tanks were lost as well. On the Russians side, 60,000 were killed and nearly 3,000 tanks were lost. This was one of the very few major battles on the Russian fronts where the Russians suffered fewer casualties than the Germans.
- and it's only "Center" group, without the "North" group. Do you have the sources for the numbers in the article? Because there are orders of difference. --Compay 19:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think that short article is credible. His sources are Globalsecurity.org, and Wikipedia. Talk about circular referencing. :-) I searched Globalsecurity, and could not find the loss figures there. So heaven knows where he got them from. Can't be used as a source, in my opinion. Andreas 09:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that 22.06.44-19.08.44 losses were 170000 for Russians? And that during the rest 10 days russian losses were 600000? According to Crivosheev losses 22.06-29.08 were ~750000. If you wouldn't object I prolong battle up to 29.08.44 and change losses to Crivosheev's figure.--Manchjurshi 09:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As quoted above "That is a figure covering much more than Bagration" or basically those figures cover a much bigger section then bagration but the axis figures cover ONLY bagration, these are the exact figures for bagration no more no less, everything is correct in the article as it is now and has been for some time, do not change anything, thank you. Greatglory12345 03:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These figures of German losses, accoring to Soviet statistics, are very interesting. They are much larger than the number of soldiers involved in combat. The the size of the German forces is, according to the article, 800,000 men, and the size of German losses (KIA, WIA, MIA, POW) is 1,148,000 men. This must mean that Germany brought up reinforcements of at least 400 000 men (during a period of 2 month!), and still, suffered losses well above 90%. 85.225.40.122 08:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source of these figures:"Soviet est.: 400,000 killed, 158,000 POWs, 590,000 wounded German est.: 260,000 killed, 250,000 wounded 116,000 POWs"?--Manchjurshi 09:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@60,000 were killed and nearly 3,000 tanks were lost.@ That couldn't be true - operation of 70-days with common casulities 78.507 KIA/MIA and 587.308 WIA/sick, total losses 765,815 and 60000 killed until 22 of August are fully incompatible. I changed to @unknown@.--Manchjurshi 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers, the 750K, include a much larger scope of operations also German numbers are very uncertain. The Germans ONLY counted the Germans who died and lived within the 1937 border any German solider who died outside the 1937 border was no counted such as Austrians or ethnic Germans inside occupied countries also only people who you could see die and died on the field were counted people who got wounded in the field and died later at hospitals or on their way to hospitals were not counted as military losses but civilians dying of civilian reasons and there is no mention of other axis troops. German numbers are therefore very unreliable and are always some where between 50% and 150% to low since they totally ignore any German who was outside the 1937 border or who died in hospitals. And the Axis NEVER listed any sick so that should not be listed for the Soviets Learntrue123 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so now I see the "referenced source" of German fantasy losses that kept me amazed. "I saw the following numbers [2]" - guys, it's a comedy. To cite this so-colled "source": Sources: Global Security, Wikipedia. Oh wow, Wikipedia citing some website citing Wikipedia. Awesome! Shorter version of this comment: lol. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Russian Wikipedia article in development also. They give the following with one source being a post-Soviet research into official records and another a very high quality Russian site dedicated to WW2.

1st Baltic, 1st Belorussian, 2nd Belorussian, 3rd Belorussian, Partisan of groups
2,331,700 people at the beginning of the operation
5200 tanks and SAU ??? the aircraft

Army Group Centre
800,000 participants
900 tanks and SAU
1350 aircraft

Military losses

Soviet
60,000 killed/was missing
110,000 injured/fell ill
in all 170,000 man
2957 tanks and SAU
2447 guns and mortars
822 combat aircraft

German Reich
409,400 thousand soldier and officers, including 255,400 thousand nonreturnable loss (killed and prisoners).
Next stop, the German Wikipedia version--Mrg3105 (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia now citing Wikipedia? Better look at the sources they used. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Hanzo, I am siting sources given in that Wikipedia article in another language. Do you read Russian? Most editors in English Wiki do not.

In any case the German Wiki gives "Die deutschen Verluste betrugen etwa 381.000 Gefallene, 158.000 Soldaten und Offiziere gerieten in Kriegsgefangenschaft" for AG Mitte. (Translation The German losses amounted to about 381,000 lost, 158,000 soldiers and officers given in...I'm struggling to put into English the last word)--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"became prisoners of war" is probably the best translation of the last bit. "Gefallene" should be translated as "dead", rather than "lost" here: it seems to suggest that 381,000 died and 158,000 were taken as POWs.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presently the stated losses for the Germans are inconsistent with the statement in the article that the Germans lost four times the Soviets. Perhaps the article should be expanded to discuss the range of estimates for the losses. In a battle this large, fought between two countries employing propaganda it is naturally difficult to zero in on a precise figure. Nevertheless to show Soviet losses exceeding German losses and then to state that German losses are 4X larger is ririculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.31.248 (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to pronounce it in English?

How do you pronounce it in English?--Nixer 03:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is correct, but I would pronounce the a like the a in Father, and the i like ee. The o is weakly pronounced I believe. Andreas 10:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, what about the ending? In Russian the stress falls on the "o".--Nixer 02:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah-grah-tee-Ohn --Compay 18:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Belarus?

This article shouldn't refer to Belarus since it didn't exist at the time. I'm not familiar enough with Russian geography to rephrase it. Clarityfiend 09:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong there, have a look at the history of Belarus. Andreas 10:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected--Nixer 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

The move to "Belorussian Offensive" was unwarranted. "Bagration" is the most prominent and recognizable name for the operation. It has long been known as such and it should be the title. The policy quoted in edit summary proceeds to say "This can be ignored for the most well-known operations". And "this" can definitely can be ignored all the more, because "belarussian offensive" is hardly a widespread title for the event, even counting all possible spellings. `'mikkanarxi 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded Alex Bakharev 12:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fourthed as strongly as possible. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective

Can someone explain to me how the Normandy invasion gets 20 pages while the much more significant Bagration gets a page and a half? Crocodilicus 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disproportional attention given by the Western allies to their mostly insignificant involvment in the war leads to historians emphasizing anything sizeable. If anything, the Normandy invasion was rather important - some "historians" go so far as to compare significance of the epic battle of Stalingrad and the skirmish at El-Alamein, or the titanic struggle at the Kursk salient to the mafia-backed invasion of southern Italy. With respect, Ko Soi IX 01:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather say that Russian wikipedians dont care (or dont have time), and American ones care even less. `'mikka 03:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't stereotype editors. I am a US citizen and have contributed a lot to Soviet/German front articles. I have no idea if Russian editors are contributing to western front articles and frankly I don't know why it would matter. A good contribution is welcome from anywhere. DMorpheus 15:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry to say that the Russian version is rather small and unfinished--Mrg3105 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find important the extent of the activity of some Wikipedia contributors. So much money in US and in Holywood in particular was invested in the myth of Day-D but the fact is that the Overlord was stuck and without the Bagration would most probably fail. In the spirit of Wikipedia is to emphasize that in this article. I can also notice that in many other articles Wikipedia is supporting pro-US, pro-Western or pro-NATO point of view. Local Wikipedas are even more biased but the English one is the most popular and could have a lot of influence but is loosing credibility in historical and political articles. RacoYes (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is for the editors to discuss improving the article. If you desire some other type of dialogue you need to look elsewhere. Gunbirddriver (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lublin-Brest Offensive

Part of Operation Bagration - 1st Bel. Front offensive in July - is known as the Lublin-Brest Offensive; I've just created a stub on that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not part of Bagration, but just to the south of it and launched weeks later. Still, it was an important operation and it's good we have an article on it.Balcer 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Front & Normandy

The German line collapsed, Hitler had to relocate divisions from Normandy back to the Eastern front, to try and stop the Red army juggernaut, which helped the Western Allies, since elite Panzer and a number SS divisions had been withdrawn to stop the Soviets and the Western Allies did not have to face these elite units in battle. This statement is factually incorrect and ought to be deleted. No units were transferred from the Western front until December 1944 (although most armoured replacements and reinforcements were sent east after July, and some armoured units were indeed transferred from the Italian front). HLGallon 15:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books say German losses much lower

Up to 350,000 (not 670,000). Also, more prisoners (150,000).

Bagration 1944: The Destruction of Army Group Centre Author: Steven J. Zaloga (however, a review says "between 300 and 400,000 irrecoverable casualties" - but sill less than 420,000+ claimed by our article)

--HanzoHattori (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, OPERATION BAGRATION: The Destruction of Army Group Centre June-July 1944, A Photographic History also says over 300,000. Are we (still) fooled by the Stalinist propaganda (and the Lukashenko's government)? --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I was duped by the google cache. Belarus now actually says "German losses, all in all, amounted to 350,000 killed, wounded or captured." I have no idea what are the "German estimates" pushed by someone. --HanzoHattori (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another, Hitler's Greatest Defeat-The Collapse of the Army Group Centre, June 1944 says that 350,000 to 400,000 men were killed wounded or taken prisoner. Enough already? --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you found a lot of websites that probably quote one author does not give the estimates you state anymore credibility. --99.231.50.118 (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply]

Aside from the books, (link on spam blacklist removed) says: "All told, Operation Bagration cost Hitler 350,000 men (including 31 generals), plus hundreds of tanks and more than 1,300 guns. Of the men lost, 160,000 were taken prisoner". Are other Eastern Front articles also using Soviet propaganda numbers? --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also says: "Because the undertaking was so extensive and complex, the four army group fronts would fall under the overall command of two trusted Stavka representatives. Marshal Aleksandr Vasilevsky, the organizer of victory at Stalingrad, would direct the two northern fronts, while the southern fronts would be supervised by Marshal Georgi Zhukov, who directed the defenses of Leningrad, Moscow and, with Vasilevsky, Stalingrad." Vasilevsky is not mentioned in the article at all. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, article says "For an offensive of this scope, the Red Army assembled 118 rifle divisions, eight tank and mechanized corps, 13 artillery divisions and six cavalry divisions, a total of approximately 2.3 million frontline and support troops." Wikipedia says 1.7 million strenght. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Fixed all this and more. --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you may want to fix the Soviet casualties also "178,000-765,000 killed, wounded and taken prisoner" :)--Mrg3105 (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Low is claimed by the books. High is claimed by http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3421346.html (our external link). --HanzoHattori (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, logic suggests that if you use one source for one set of data, then you need to use the same source for related data to avoid misrepresentation, so go ahead and edit, or the edits from the previous corrections would have to be restored despite your sources since they will not reflect accurate comparative sets to give the reader a true picture of the casualties resulting from this operation. --Mrg3105 (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? My sources are the first page (top 10) of google search on Operation Bagration+losses (incidentally: several books, wikipedia's own "external link" on history.net, and even the government of Belarus which also scaled down the German losses since they first published them). None of these modern sources present the Soviet propaganda figures and these odd "German estimates" at all. You guys chose the history.net article to be prominently featured as for the further reading, so what's wrong to actually cite it in the article? --HanzoHattori (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the search, because I thought the numbers presented in the article are insanely high. I was right. And turned out you guys even missed out the one of two Soviet high commanders entirely (like down a memory hole). So don't teach me on how to write stuff properly. --HanzoHattori (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your casualty figures are unreferenced. If you are sighting specific literary references, then you need to insert them into the figures. While you are doing the Germans, you need to do the Soviets also, or you are showing bias by reducing the German casualty data, but leaving the Soviet data either undefined or high. Tis simply reflects German propaganda. If you can't do it, then I will.--Mrg3105 (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck are you talking about? The previous ones were unreferenced (including totally riducalous "German estimate" also unsourced), the now are referenced. Look above: top 10 google search, including several books (every book in top ten), our own "external link" (the only one), and even the state of Belarus now (which I guess presents "German propaganda" according to you). And none(!) of these presents incredible (total fantasy IMO) ~6 times greater German losses - excdept an Internet forum post, which was likely to be influenced by this article. --HanzoHattori (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll show you just to teach you.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Operation+Bagration+losses&btnG=Google+Search

  1. They claimed to have killed 38,000 Germans and captured 158,000
  2. (Internet forum)
  3. (Wikipedia lol)
  4. All told, Operation Bagration cost Hitler 350,000 men ... Of the men lost, 160,000 were taken prisoner (...) the Soviets lost some 765,000 troops, of which 178,000 were either killed or missing (wikipedia's "external link")
  5. German losses, all in all, amounted to 350000 killed, wounded or captured.
  6. (Internet forum)
  7. (Internet forum)
  8. 350,000 to 400,000 men were killed wounded or taken prisoner.
  9. Almost 300,000 Germans were killed or captured
  10. The shattering defeat of Army Group Centre resulted in the loss of over 300,000 men

I see now I had to use another search criteria, because some other pages showed now (no [3] for example, see my first post). But the result is the same. --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I used "Operation Bagration soviet losses" not "Operation Bagration losses" the first time. The 1st was better - more books, less forums (but with wikipedia first now, and includes a "wikipedia has more" article - I don't know why people believe wikipedia so much, see: this very article). --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For formality, the other (old) hits:

  1. between 300 and 400,000 irrecoverable casualties on the Wehrmacht. (killed + captured + maimed)
  2. the loss of over 300,000 men
  3. for some reason I don't see [4] again, but "mimimum of 300,000, but probably closer to 350,000" including 150,000 captured

That's all. Learn now and bye. --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wrote much of the current version of the article, based mostly on Dunn and Zaloga for the basic narrative version of events.

However, I left the casualty figures as they were in the original (pre July 2007) version, mainly because every source I've checked gives different figures (for a variety of historical reasons I'm sure you're all aware of).

Perhaps the only fair solution would be to provide a comparative table of casualties as given by different sources?

(edit) - this was me! Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other problems too, incidentally. Dunn (and others) state that although the German armoured formations attached to AGC were much weaker than normal, the normal infantry divisions - which made up the bulk of Fourth, Ninth and Third Panzer Armies - were at nearly full strength, thanks to a steady stream of replacements during the previous six months. Other sources, such as Mitcham, state that they were very weak, and that each army was at little more than corps strength (the discrepancies often seem to reflect the underlying political position of the writer, particularly their attitude towards the Svoiet Army). Whereas Mitcham, for example, states that Pfeiffer's VI Corps - perhaps the corps on the receiving end of the heaviest attacks, occupying as it did the strategically important sector between Vitebsk and the road through Orsha - was seriously understrength, Dunn states that it was in fact one of the strongest corps, consisting of good-quality divisions which were at full strength (with the exception of the 197th, which was comprehensively flattened within hours of the Soviet attack). Who are we to believe? As nearly all of Fourth Army and most of the other two didn't make it back even by German admission, their initial strength - which no-one seems to agree on - has a lot of bearing on the casualty figures. Of course one factor here may be that in a normal infantry division as organised in the Wehrmacht (as in the British and American armies) the proportion of men actually in frontline rifle companies is quite low; many of the personnel will be in support units. The Soviet army delegated many supply and support functions to corps level IIRC so that the rifle divisions - though smaller overall - had a high proportion of frontline troops.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at Zaloga via your link - probably the most readily available source, and generally accurate, as he has a bit more access to Soviet records than some earlier writers. He says 300-350,000 "losses" including roughly 150,000 prisoners. This sounds about right if we assume that:

  • In the region of 100,000 men from Fourth Army were encircled. As hardly any of its component units got out, this sounds reasonable.
  • 70,000 of Ninth Army were lost around Bobruisk (based on Soviet figures). Von Lutzow's corps was destroyed, and few of Hoffmeister's got out, so this would be relatively accurate.
  • All of LIII Corps (30,000) plus most of VI Corps (say another 30,000, perhaps more) were lost from Third Panzer Army. No-one seems to give IX Corps losses, but they must have been high...

This gives a very, very conservative estimate of 230,000 for frontline troops lost east of Minsk. Factor in Vilnius, Molodechno, Baranovichi and the other post-Minsk actions, plus losses of support units, and 350,000 looks pretty good. Here's the problem, though - as for whether this would certainly include wounded is another matter: Mitcham also gives 300,000, but states that this is killed and POW (ie. 'irrecoverable') only.

I'm convinced that Zaloga gives 200,000 wounded somewhere else on top of the 300-350,000, by which I think he means 'irrecoverables', but don't have my copy to hand. I'll check it later. If we allow for 200,000 wounded on top of 350,000 killed and captured, we get 650,000 losses out of about 800,000 total in AGC.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HanzoHattori, please don't get into the "huff and puff" mode and consider what I said. Since you have so graciously did the research and provided the consensus casualty figures for the AG Mitte, you might as well insert the citations for the Soviet losses from the same sources. CURRENTLY they are unreferenced, and therefore subject to doubt as to their being original research or unverified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you blind? Crazy? "CURRENTLY" they are referenced. BEFORE were unreferenced (just the riducalous claims of "German estimates" etc, aka bullshit). I'm seriously tired of this. You apparently think 0 (zero, null, to this moment) sources is better than numerous sources including several published books, and you call these numerous sources a "subject to doubt as to their being original research or unverified". This is stupid (you hear me right). --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to call in someone who can cool you down and remind you of personal attacks and using abusive language in Wikipedia policy?

LOOK in the Aftermath section. I paste it here for you so you don't have a heart attack from the shock

Overall the near-total annihilation of Army Group Centre cost the Germans 2,000 tanks and more than 1,300 artillery pieces. German mapower losses are estimated at 300,000-400,000, including about 150,000 captured.[missing citation]
Soviet losses were also substantial, with 178,000-765,000 men killed, wounded and taken prisoner, and with 2,857 tanks, 2,447 artillery pieces, and 822 aircraft also lost.[missing citation]

NEITHER statements have references attached to even one source!!! Which page of which book are you looking at? I have at least two of the works you quoted, and can do so myself, but since you took such an interest in contributing I thought you should be the one to reference the fruits of your research. It is not enough to list the books in the sources section when quoting figures. You need to add the references using the Harvard system also.--Mrg3105 (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources I listed here. It's 300-400,000, but generally focusing on about 350,000, with 150,000-160,000 prisoners. If you want, write a note to explain this, because I don't think it can be now explained in a one simple link or something. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you were right about 550,000. It's been a long day.

Incidentally, I don't know where the casualty figures in the original article (i.e. before I rewrote it) came from; they weren't referenced. In the absence of anything conclusive I just let them stand for the time being until something everyone could agree on was thrashed out. As you say, a figure of 300-350,000 German losses does seem to be consistent, though different authors describe this as merely 'losses' (Zaloga) or 'killed / captured' (Mitcham), so as to whether it would cover all casualties (i.e. including wounded, or those listed as missing) is unclear.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bargation losses - analysis

The problem here is one typical to the Eastern front and is split into many sections

  • The Germans normally use a smaller part of the battle and only call that the “battle of whatever” and then totally ignore all other casualties but they use the bigger operation and use all Soviet loses there, so what we have is only a small section of the battle where we have German loses and the whole section of Soviet loses and the Germans usually count for a smaller period of time and use a longer period of time for the Soviets, if for example the battle lasted 10 days then they only count 3 of those and 30 for the Soviets
  • Then we have the problem that only Germans seen killed on the battle are listed as dead if a person was wounded on the battle field but was recovered and later died in a hospital he was a civilian person dying of civilian causes.
  • The Germans do not count the Germans that existed outside the 1937 border of Germany or any Austrians, they do not simply exist
  • All axis allies do not count or exist, there were certainly some Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, and even French and Dutch but they do not count
  • Also what has been seen as common practice is that that only German estimates of enemy causalities are used because clearly all Soviet numbers are nothing more than Jewish bolshevist untermenshen propaganda unless of course the Soviet numbers are greater than the German estimates and then the Soviets numbers are used with utmost joy and cheerfulness. Singsalive (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Singsalive. It seems to me that what you wrote are probably well known issues to most contributing editors here. The ideal goal is to work out what the figures were, and which (maybe several) author/s should be referenced for the article. So you like Zaloga, but others may disagree, so what ween need is a sophisticated analysis that can then be condensed and inserted into the content.--Mrg3105 (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Singsalive is very right in his analysis of soviet and german losses. A common practice indeed that shows no attempt to bring truth to the reader.99.231.50.118 (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply]

What is the source(s) for the claims of "strenght" in the infobox?

The German of "800,000" and the Soviet of "1,700,000"?

The only one I saw is 2,300,000.[5] (359,500 First Baltic, 579,300 Third Belorussian, 1,071,100 First Belorussian, 319,500 Second Belorussian) --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you got into the edit of talk before I could update, and then the database locked.

The figures in the box give a total. However in reality there were some 300,000 partisans whch were a part of the 2.3 million figure because the Soviet sources give them as being a part of the Fronts (which controlled the various groups) as after the operation when most were amalgamated into the regular units. I just wanted to separate the two because the intention of the box is to present starting figures and not the figures for forces after the operation ended.--Mrg3105 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The partisans took part in the fighting since the beginning, so I think should be counted too. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact if anything they started the operation by conducting sabotage and small scale attacks before the official Soviet commencement. However the "box" may be misinterpreted in giving the impression that the Red Army begun the actual operation with that number of regular frontline troops, and this is important for understanding the correlation and methods used in this operation. Yes, I know I'm crazy and think 0 (NEVER USE WORDS YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO SWALLOW LATER), BUT this is a reflection of an excellent study of the operation for those who look at it for understanding and lessons learned and not just raw casualty figures, such as "Battle for White Russia: The destruction of Army Group Centre June 1944" by Gerd Niepold, translated and edited by Richard Simpkin. If you know your authors, then you will know these names as excellent authorities. I think when I am done with Barbarossa article, I will move on to here and redo it based on this book and the Staff College symposiums by Glantz which also have statements and assessments of the German participants in them.--Mrg3105 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaloga (whose main sources are Niepold, Glantz and the symposiums conducted by the latter) states that AGC had about 800,000 men at the start of the operation and that the Soviets had a little over twice that. Mitcham (p.16) states 700,000 Germans against 2,500,000 (!) Russians. Dunn states that on 1 June AGC had 578,225 men (p.61), though he also states that the operation involved "nearly a million" Axis forces and about 2 million Soviet troops (p.2).

By the way, Niepold is good on the narrative version of events, but I wouldn't necessarily trust him on figures.

Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POWs murdered at Bobruisk

I notice that a reference to this incident has been added. I assume this refers to the 3,500 wounded left behind in the Bobruisk fortress who Niepold (I think) claims 'disappeared', concluding they were killed by the Soviets. Was there any proof of this, or are all subsequent references to this based on Niepold? I'm not saying it's unlikely, as wounded were routinely killed by both sides, but I wondered where the claim comes from.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bagration article planning

It seems to me that good sets of maps will be essential for the Eastern Front articles because of the complexity of some of the operations and the lack of familiarity of the areas by English speakers. How about trying to use annotated GoogleMap satellite images? Standard NATO unit symbols are widely available, and aside from that all that is needed is FEBA lines and arrows indicating formation/unit movement--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 22:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'm gradually getting the new structure together on my userpage and have already incorporated all the existing content into the new sub-articles - with a completely new section on the Polotsk Offensive - and added some extra material, complete OOBs etc, adding detail to corps level along with any divisional actions that seem noteworthy. In line with the OOB stuff I've started fixing a few of the (currently very inconsistent/incomplete) pages on the German corps involved (I assume the Soviet units are being dealt with by a separate project?), and am trying to add stubs for the remaining Wehrmacht corps commanders, as basic biographical information on these people is readily available. I've also noticed that the German wikipedia article has been much expanded recently and some good photos have been uploaded into the media section as a result - these can be used to ensure all the sub-articles have at least one illustrative photograph, for those who appreciate that kind of thing. I'm also trying to find suggestions for further reading, eg. Lev Kopelev's book Хранить вечно.
Maps would be a great help, though. After the text of the articles is in reasonable shape I might start work on this - something with the standard NATO symbols would be good, as you say.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you need from the Soviet side in terms of Formation/unit articles (Armies, Corps, divisions, etc.) the person that looks after that is user User:Buckshot06. Everything else, whatever you need ask me. For help with Germans you can ask User:W. B. Wilson although I will try to help there also as will Buckshot.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 10:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bagration, East Prussian Offensive

Hi, I notice that you've been making some contributions to these articles recently - they're both ones I've been trying to expand, especially the one covering Operation Bagration. I wondered if you would like to collaborate on trying to bring them (and related articles on the Vistula-Oder Operation etc) up to FA quality. I would be particularly interested in anything that can expand on Soviet deployments/tactics used in these operations, as it's rather easier to find sources (in English) relying only on German accounts.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's true that the Eastern Front articles as they stand tend to be organised from the Axis perspective. I assume this is a result of the fact that most English-language sources are based on German accounts. Many of the texts on Operation Bagration, for example, will detail German deployments down to divisional and sometimes regimental level, whereas it's difficult to find such details beyond army level, never mind corps level, for Soviet forces - other than in Glantz. I guess, in this case, this is because a lot of the English-language accounts rely on Niepold (who was the Ia of 12th Panzer).
If your overall project is to fill out the background for each of the offensive operations involved, I'd agree that the best way to proceed would be to expand the section on the overall operational planning, perhaps with links to the sub-articles you outline. As for the narrative of the battle itself, I originally organised it around the three main encirclements - at Vitebsk, Minsk, and Bobruisk - of the LIII Corps, Fourth Army, and Ninth Army respectively. If you feel this material could be organised into the individual offensive operations you mention, perhaps we could set up a test version of each of these articles to go about inserting the material and seeing what still needs to be added.
The East Prussian Offensive article needs a lot of extra material in general.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually a newcomer (see work by users Buckshot06 and W. B. Wilson), and so the project is being tackled from both the top-down and bottom-up perspectives. Have a look at the Soviet Army and from there to the Armies and divisions, and Corps eventually. An enormous amount of work there already. We will hopefully link up at the Front level. I do need the German operations so I can correlate them with the Soviet. Lets try and work together and see where we get to. I'm currently still translating the operations and preparing basic texts for translation, so will not be ready for their publication as start articles for some time, but we can plan.--mrg3105mrg3105 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well let me know when you are getting close to having some of the texts ready. I imagine that the Battle of Vilnius (1944) will need to be bought into this as well!Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have attempted to collect all the Eastern Front related articles in the Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World to see what's there. Battle of the Baltic was tagged for speedy deletion today since there was no such battle (lasting from 1939-1945!

Do you have a list of prominent Wehrmacht "battles" for the Eastern Front? --mrg3105mrg3105 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could obtain one for the period prior to Operation Citadel, but after that pretty much everything the Wehrmacht did on the Eastern Front was a defensive action in response to a Soviet offensive operation. It makes sense to list the battles under the Soviet designation and include information on the defensive deployments within the article. There are prominent Wehrmacht 'actions' which might merit sub-articles, I guess - I created one on the Heiligenbeil Kessel as an article on the 'aftermath' of the East Prussian Offensive, rather as the relatet Battle of Konigsberg has its own (detailed) article.
I think part of the problem is one of classification - no doubt the Wehrmacht would regard the Battle of Memel as one long defensive action, but from the Soviet perspective, it's really partly a result of the Memel Operation and partly of the East Prussian Operation.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you are right. What we might do is to invent operation names for Wehrmacht. The only way to do this is to include a defensive for every Wehrmacht offensive and visa versa. Since the prevailing naming practice appears to be one based on city names (with exception of Crimea and Kourland), what you might want to do is isolate the Armee Korps, Armee and Korps and find where their defensives were. Then these can be matched with the Soviet operations. What will happen is that for example several Wehrmacht Korps defensive operations may correspond with a single Soviet offensive one. What do you think?--mrg3105mrg3105 07:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could certainly try it with Bagration as a start, as this is a long and complex article (and offensive). As things stand, my 'narrative' of the battle follows the example of Zaloga, and splits both the Soviet offensive actions (and corresponding German defence efforts) roughly into three initial sectors:
  • The offensive into the sector defended by Third Panzer Army, running around Vitebsk southwards as far as the positions held by VI Corps in front of Bogushevsk (does this correspond to the Polotsk Offensive Operation in your sources?
  • The offensive into the sector defended by Fourth Army, especially the actions by Grishin's 49th Army against Martinek's corps in front of Mogilev, and by the 11th Guards Army against Voelckers' corps defending Orsha (I assume this is the Mogilev Offensive Operation - does it include the Orsha operations also?)
  • Rokossovksy's encirclement of Ninth Army in Bobruisk (the Bobruysk Offensive Operation)
The next section is the major encirclement of Fourth Army east of Minsk, and the liberation of the city itself (your Minsk Offensive Operation, I assume).
The existing materials on the German defence could therefore be incorporated into the sub-articles on the offensive operations mentioned above, and expanded in the case of the operations conducted after Minsk fell (after which many sources based on the German historiography almost seem to lose interest - understandable enough, as the bulk of Army Group Centre had been encircled or destroyed by then). The main 'Operation Bagration' article could then conclude with the overall statistics of the defeat inflicted on AGC, and the Soviet success in ataining the startegic objectives of the operation. As I said, if we set up a test article/subarticles, we could see what we come up with.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osovets Offensive Operation

My next step in the rewrite is to create a sub-article on this (available from my user page initially - I'll copy everything across in one go, when it's done).

This was the final stage of the 2nd Belorussian Front's attack towards Osowiec (and the East Prussian Border) after it had successfully taken Bialystok. Does anyone have a German OOB for this period (i.e. late August 1944) and this area, and information on the commanders? At a guess we're looking at whatever made up Fourth Army at the time, but the last OOB I have for this is in mid-July (when it didn't contain very much). The 286th Security Division may have been being 'rebuilt' in the area in August, but that's the most detail I have.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also it appears that the (rebuilt) 14th Infantry Division was there at some point - which again suggests Fourth Army. This unit had originally been in the lines near Orsha, was then mostly destroyed near Minsk, and remnants were also present the battle at Vilnius, so was involved in most of Bagration. I can't find any other detail though
Further, I note that 2BF's commander Zakharov was demoted from front command after Bagration as his performance was felt to be poor. As the line on the Narew (and Osowiec itself, I think) held until January, it can be assumed that the last of the Front's operations did not achieve their objective - was this operation perhaps the reason for Zakharov's demotion?Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More info - the German defence might have been from the XX Corps of 2nd Army, as this ended up on the Narew and was definitely defending the Osowiec sector by that winter. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Progress so far:

  • Main article: largely finished, just needs cleanup
  • Sub-articles:
    • Vitebsk-Orsha Offensive: largely finished, needs cleanup
    • Mogilev Offensive: largely finished, needs cleanup
    • Babruysk Offensive: largely finished, needs cleanup
    • Minsk Offensive: largely finished, needs cleanup
    • Polotsk Offensive: finished, needs cleanup
    • Vilnius Offensive: will initially link to Battle of Vilnius (1944)
    • Schaulyai Offensive: needs writing, perhaps at later date - a basic outline is in main article
    • Lublin-Brest Offensive: will initially link to existing Lublin-Brest Offensive, though this needs attention
    • Belostock Offensive: largely finished, needs cleanup
    • Kaunas Offensive: needs writing, perhaps at later date. I have little information on this
    • Osovets Offensive: basic info in place, will complete shortly

As mentioned above, if anyone has any info on the Kaunas or Osovets Offensives, they will be able to add it. I think I may add a small disclaimer on each page noting that the placenames used are the Russian versions as the articles refer to a Soviet military operation, just to forestall any possible disagreements....

Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can help with Kaunas, but Osovets will need a bit of digging.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 11:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have a feeling that Osovets was simply an operation to sieze bridgeheads over the Bobr / Narew and perhaps to penetrate the East Prussian border to prevent a defensive line there, but that's just speculative. The fortifications at Osowiec / Ossowiec were the main obstacle on the approaches to the border on that axis; I suspect that the 2BF was given these objectives in a basically 'opportunistic' manner, and as the fortress held until January, probably found the task too much for them given the length of supply lines and the poor terrian in the area. There may be something from the German side in Hinze, but I don't have a copy to hand...Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finished

OK - the new edit is up, as are all the sub-artcles. All the original content is there plus a lot of extra stuff. Plenty of scope for people to expand content using the more detailed structure.

Some third phase sub-articles still to come....Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Re. the revert of 29/02, please note that the 'deletions' I made merely consisted of moving the sub-sections of the article to their own pages in line with the agreed article structure (see discussion above).

The info. is still there, just organised in a different (and I think better) way.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

regarding losses.

If wikipedia really wants to use different sources and different numbers as some editors here claim, then why are german losses are from a single author??? Maybe people should follow their own advice?99.231.50.118 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply]

I will edit losses to include only totals, but I will add the estimates from both russian side and german side, while the breakdown that is right now in the german infobox I will put into the casualties in the article itself.--99.231.50.118 (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply]

German losses

On the box on the right it says 399,000 as total German casualties, but in the Aftermath section it says 670,000. I feel that Wikipedia should at least be consistent with itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.192.222 (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Losses.

In Germany, Operation Bagration is called "Destruction of Army Group Center". Are some people really as stupid to think that german army group Center consisted of ~ 290,000 men? Germans lost 300,000 in Belorussia alone. Why do we keep returning to Bergstrom, when even american Steven Zaloga gives much higher casualties? Someone doesn't like that gemrans lost more than soviets? Too bad, but that is a historical fact. Learn to cope with it. If you want to insert casualties count according to your historian, then please insert this into the aftermath part of the article. As of now, it is widely regarded that germans lost 300,000 KIA in Belorussia alone. --99.231.50.118 (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply]

Depends what you mean by "germans lost more than soviets". If we are talking irrecoverable losses only (ie. dead+missing), than yeah, the germans lost more. But if we are talking total losses (ie. dead+missing+wounded etc), than the soviet lost more than the germans, as was the case almost in every single operation. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I have inserted into the box the Soviet casualty figures according to the most reliable source up to now: Krivosheev who gives over 700,000 irrecoverable losses. Regarding German losses: What source does Mr Steven Zaloga give in his 96-pages-booklet? Be that as it may: Serious modern research made by the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office gives German losses as 26,397 confirmed killed in action, 262.929 missing or captured (with about 150,000 captured and 110,000 furhter killed) and 109.776 wounded. I have added this in the articles itself. That makes for ca. 400,000 irrecoverable losses, including about 140,000 killed. Krivosheev and Frieser are today the standard of academic scholarship.--Akribes (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Red Army lost tank figure seems to be unrealistic: They lost more than they had before the operation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazadeperla (talk • contribs) 00:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to lose more than initially present because of the arrival of replacements and reinforcements after the start of the operation. (Hohum @) 14:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Clarity and Style of the Article

I have just looked at this article for the first time, and have to say that at present it is a bit of a mess. It is difficult to see the wood fom the trees - the main elements and events of the operation are obscured by excessive detail and discussion of strategic and tactical motives, which seem to be are rather interleaved with the narrative of the events themselves.

As a solution to this, I would suggest that:

  • there need to be more sections, and quibbling over details, or discussing the finer points of historiography could perhaps be put into related articles
  • narrative of the battle and discussion of how it all relates to military theory or the wider implications for the war ought to be discussed seperately. Someone reading this article for the first time needs first of all to be presented with a clear outline and timeline of events.

Toroboro (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

Can anyone please explain how the name Bagration is supposed to be pronounced? EriFr (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, bəɡɹʌtsɪ'ɔn.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Losses

People messed really with the German casualties and their sources around. I fixed it. Bergstrom seems to give the numbers of Frießer (around 400,000). Zaloga gives in his book a range of 300,000-350,00, which already _includes_ prisoners, so adding it up was wrong (which happened curiously at the Bergstrom source too). Old Soviet numbers which are not supportet by newer sources were moved to the notes section. Several far older revisions already got correct numbers, but over the time lots of wrong things were added... StoneProphet (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note, that the different numbers of Soviet casualties i had changed recently, is just caused, because some sources dont count the casualties of the First Polish Army, what makes this difference. StoneProphet (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet casualties

Hi there, I just made a passing here and noticed that Soviet causalties in the infobox are given as 770,888 whereas the German combat casualties (POWs not included) are 135,000-200,000. When I checked the "details", Soviet causalties add up to about 170,000. Obviously, considering that the operation lasted a few weeks and that the Soviet force involved totalled some 1,250,000 soldiers (according to infobox again), the figure of 770,000 casualties is wrong and apparently refers to something else -not Bagration. I don't have sources to check and to make corrections. I assume there's good faith, and the interested editors will correct this.--Xristar (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet casualties are apt, since they come from an academically accepted work. For details, see below section. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS. The soviets took no more than 160 000 prisoners (hence, "bloody" losses for the Germans were at around 240 000). So the ratio is about 3 1/4 Soviet for every German. This ratio is actually quite good, given that at Kursk the ratio was about 4 1/3 Soviet for every German. The Wehrmacht was a very efficient killing machine, and no allied army was able to fight them successfully without an overwhelming numeric advantage. Ko Soi IX (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviets committed 1,250,000 men and suffered 771,000 casualties? That's 60+%, -more than the entire combatant elements in the Soviet formations. It defies logic. Perhaps the Soviet force was over 1,250,000. Anyway there is a serious logical fallacy here. --Xristar (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Zaloga gives a total of 178,507 Soviet casualties.--Xristar (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Soviets committed more men (I personally don't know where the 1 250 000 number comes from, my guess that it's a attempt to artificially create a non-existant category in the Soviet army, to mirror the "combat strength", ie. frontline infantry, sappers, scouts and such (not radio operators, artillerymen and supply) category used in the Wehrmacht). The four Soviet fronts numbered 2 331 700 men (with further 79 900 poles). Zaloga's number is Soviet losses in dead and missing. There were further 587 308 wounded Soviets. The 1st Polish army lost 5073 to all causes. Those numbers are from here (in Russian) http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/1939-1945/KRIWOSHEEW/poteri.txt#w06.htm-_Toc536603393. The infobox itself is misleading, since casualty are written from all men, while only "combat strength" is shown as participants. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS The above mentioned strength numbers do not include reinforcements, but their casualties are included in the total. Ko Soi IX (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet casualties come directly from Krivosheev, who is currently the best available (and for most times the only reliable one) source for this matter. Soviet casualties are high, but since they can easily replace them, this doesnt matter, if they can cause at the same time a large amount of irreplacable casualties to the Wehrmacht (which they did here). Zalogas 178,507 are dead man, not overall casualties - now add the additional 1,533 dead of the First Polish Army and you get 180,040, which is already in the article. StoneProphet (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I suggest adding full strength to the infobox, as opposed to just combat troops, as we have for Germans and (i assume) for the Soviets, since those "non-combat"[ie.artillerymen, medical personell, radio operators, etc] troops suffered casualties which are in the infobox. The numbers would be 849 000 for the Germans and 2 331 700 for the Soviets (+79 900 Polish). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you have the number for the German strenght from? 2 331 700 for the Soviets is right, thats what Krivosheev gives (i dont know where this 1,254,300 comes from). If the source for the Germans is good, we should change it. StoneProphet (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist history?

The intent of the Soviets to strike their main blow towards the Vistula can be seen in the Red Army's (albeit fragmented) order of battle. The Soviet General Staff Studies of both the Belorussian and L'vov-Sandomierz operations reveal that the L'vov-Przemyśl operation received the overwhelming number of Tank and Mechanized Corps. Six Guards Tank Corps and six Tank Corps along with three Guards Mechanized and two Mechanized Corps were committed to the L'vov operation. This totaled twelve Tank and five Mechanized Corps. In contrast, Operation Bagration's Baltic and Belorussian Fronts were allocated just eight Tank and two Mechanized Corps.[25] The 1st Belorussian Front (an important part of the L'vov-Peremshyl operation) is not mentioned on the Soviet battle order for the offensive. It contained a further six armies and was to protect the flank of the Lublin–Brest Offensive as well as engage in offensive operations in that area.[26]

I don't know how accurate this is but if it is true then in no way can Soviet deception be described as a success since the Germans, after all, expected the main attack to be against Lvov in the first place. 65.31.54.136 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki follows what the RS's say, not someone's personal viewpoint. Without a citation your observation has no value. HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Rail War and Concert

These partisan operations were in support of the Kursk Offensive, not Operation Bagration, I think. Sorry, don't know enough to change it myself. 94.175.104.128 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the partisan offensive was in support of Bagration. By comparison there was very little partisan support for hindering Citadel preparations Crock81 (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty in comparing/rationalizing casualties

The main issue of comparing casualties is the discrepancy in German wounded throughout the war. Some sources cite 4.2 million Germans wounded throughout the entire war, others are as high as 7.2 million, giving a margin of error of "only" 3 million. Needless to say, it is all but impossible to further break down the German wounded by year, let alone by month.

The Soviet sources mostly define casualties as "irrecoverable", being killed in action/died of wounds, missing and prisoner but NOT including the wounded in the casualty list. Krivosheev and Overmans are the most reliable sources for Russian and German statistics of casualties, which is the closest you can get to apples-to-apples comparison.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsamlib.ru%2Fz%2Fzhitorchuk_j_w%2Fzzhitorchuk_j_wpoteri123.shtml

From the 3rd quarter of 1944: 1944 III 510790 Soviet irrecoverable losses 1102483 German and other axis irrecoverable losses on Eastern Front 0.5 approximate ratio of Soviet:German irrecoverable losses

The 3rd quarter of 1944 comprises the losses for July, August and September. So, casualties from June 22-June 31 are not included as part of Bagration, while September casualties are included, which are not. Still, this is the roughest idea one could get as to the ratio of losses at Bagration. Azubarev2 (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Alex[reply]

== article is not a GOOD one

it contains static data == does not show visual data of battle,

is very poorly put together.

waterloo example of good battle article Juror1 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

31 German Generals lost in Operation Bagration

There's 31 German Generals lost in Operation Bagration.

Does anybody have a reliable source of a list of 31 German Generals killed , commit suicide , captured or missing in Operation Bagration ? Please make a edit of it. --Comrade John (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

502th heavy tank battalion?

There is pic depicting two destroyed tiger tanks with soviet soldier examining them. June '44 ? Both tanks has 'mammoth' emblem, which is the emblem of the 502th heavy Panzer battalion, which did not suffer such a loss on june (it did but not like it is depicted in picture) and wasn't, AFAIK, present in operation Bagration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.58.120 (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Here we go again: decisive?

Here we go with another edit war on the term 'decisive victory'. The same argument gets repeated every so often on the Battle of France page. I am just opening up a talk topic on this to encourage editors to discuss instead of edit warring.

The usual problem is that folks cannot agree on the meaning of 'decisive'. FWIW here is the wiki article Decisive victory

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of decisive victory on wikipedia (or even elsewhere, including reliable sources) isn't really the issue, because it isn't up to us as editors to interpret. If reliable sources specifically mainly say this operation was decisive, that should be in the infobox. If there is complexity and nuance and differing opinion among sources, it should be explored more fully in the article body, and the infobox left as "Victory". (Hohum @) 16:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Bagration&oldid=823094030"