This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Am I the first one to notice that the strategic map does not indicate Velikiye Luki as being in Soviet possession in March 1943? What is the use of a map like that? --Pan Gerwazy 09:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Support renaming - to Velikie-Luki Offensive Operation per various books by David Glantz (for example When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (Modern War Studies) by David M. Glantz and Jonathan M. House). The current article title is misnamed after a 1991 commercial computer game by RAW Entertainment, Inc. White Death, Battle for Velikiye Luki, November 1942 adapted from the GDW board wargame of the same name, so does a great bit of advertising for the company--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What's with all these "Offensive Operations"? Sounds like a euphemism for proactive surgery or something. From this search it seems that, whatever they are, they're only conducted by Russians. And what about the German "Defensive Operations"? Should these German actions be split into a separate article? — AjaxSmack 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No, strategic operations were not conducted only by the Red Army. However, almost all Allied operations were given, and are referred to by their codenames, which only a few of the Soviet operations have. Unfortunately, because the real names were unknown in the West until the 1960s, many have fictitious names made up by the media, i.e. journalists and published authors who rarely spoke Russian or had access to Soviet histories. Some operations are known in Soviet histories by their Western names, such as Battle of Kursk (Kurskaya Bitva) for example. I have not tried to change that, but simply pointed out the operational names of the constituent parts of the whole. By Wikipedia, and military history as an academic discipline standards, wrong names of events is called "original" research, or better said a "creative" one. Now why is it that the 8,8 cm FlaK 18 is not called the 8cm anti-aircraft gun? Because close enough is not good enough.
I do agree with you that German defensive operations should also have articles. I can only do so much, but essentially for every Soviet offensive there was of course a German defensive operation. Unfortunately the way German war history has been written, mostly by former Wehrmacht officers, what is recorded are some notable Axis offensives, counter-offensives, and one or two of the more spectacular defeats. There is for example no book named German strategic defensive operation in Belorussia although Army Group Centre knew there was a Soviet offensive coming, and tried to prepare for Operation Bagration. Gerd Niepold who was one of the best known German military historians, called his book in translation of no lesser personage then Richard Simpkin, and published by Brasseys "Battle for White Russia:The destruction of Army Group Centre June 1944". Niepold was a former Chief G3 with the 12 Panzer Division. However, no one seems to have read the first seven chapters of his book! The reason? Operational planning and logistics are not as "sexy" as the actual combat where people can read about the tanks and guns. How these tanks and guns are positioned and supplied so they can function is often dealt with by two paragraphs in the introduction of very many books, just pick your favourite military operation. The truth is that for every good book on the history of Eastern Front in WW2, there is a dozen bad publications that rehash their own older kinds.
If I didn't have to waste time on trying to correct the basic article entry name in futile discussion that are based on votes rather than citing sources, I may have achieved much more. I have tried to integrate Axis operations into the Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II with a view of eventually creating a separate similar article for German operations; an idea that has been OKed by David Glantz. However, there are very few people interested in helping, most are just trying to push their point of view, often with ethnic connotations, so I feel extremely discouraged to continue. Still, there is no reason an article in Wikipedia should be named for a computer game the designer's of which probably named it for something more acceptable for the marketing purposes rather than historical accuracy expected from a reference work--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree if the only reference is a video game. Further comments here. — AjaxSmack 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I made major alterations to the section dealing with the consequences of the battle. In my opinion, most of the information presented was wrong. The Germans didn't leave Rzhev because of this battle. The transport lines connecting the German Army groups did not go through the city nor were they cut by the fall of the city. Nor did the battle lead in any way to the eventual destruction of Army Group Center. The best that could be said is that it moved the Soviets closer to important targets related to the logistics of Army Group Center.
I also think the stalingrad comparisons are utterly wrong. This was a fortress in a swamp. In many respects, it was under siege long before the actual battle. The supply situation was difficult even in the best of times and there were no real solid front lines in the area. There was only really one german route into the city which could easily be blocked by the other side. Its very different from the situation at Stalingrad. Rather than Stalingrad, its closer to an early example of Hitler's fortified location defensive strategy from later in the war. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree fervantly. If you look at the rail map in the lede, it clearly shows that the north south rail lines lead directly into Vitebsk, which was the critical objective of Operation Bagration. Furthermore, the Russian-made documentary "Soviet Storm" also bluntly said that the loss of Velikiye Luki forced the withdrawl from Rzhev. You can watch the english translation here http://www.hulu.com/watch/386276#i0,p6,d0 If the link does not work, just go to hulu and search for Soviet Storm, then click on Episode 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Original poster has no clue what he's talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
There were not 2,000,000 casualties at Stalingrad. These numbers, listed over and over again, are calculated based on defining "Stalingrad" to be the entire Southern part of the Soviet Union in 1942 and part of 1943. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)