Talk:Battle of Debrecen
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Debrecen article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Battle of Debrecen article
Will this article (Battle of Debrecen) be replaced? If a writer is needed, I do have some materials I could use to put an article together with references and (I think) a balanced accounting.
However, I am not totally sure why the original article was removed . . . too one sided? Any help on why the original article was removed would be very helpful.
WARNING!: New user.
Mkpumphrey 19:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Editor's notes, 7 July 2007
I have made quite a few edits to the Debrecen article over the last week, and hope the overall effect of the changes are positive and not destructive to the article's original structure.
Major additions to the article include the actions on the Tisza River, some of the combat of the Soviet-allied Romanian units during the battle, the Soviet order of battle, the addition of the Hungarian Third Army to the Axis order of battle, footnotes, and an enlarged references section.
The original thrust of the article led to a climax in which the destruction of Pliyev's cavalry-mechanized group was described, and lent a strong impression that the Debrecen Operation had been a Soviet defeat. Certain edits were made to present a more balanced description. That this operation delivered an entire third of Hungary into Soviet hands is evidence that this was no Soviet defeat. Yet, an examination of the events in the battle makes it clear that the armored counter-attacks of the Germans prevented an operational defeat from becoming a catastrophe with strategic implications. It also seems clear that the action at Nyíregyháza, while a culminating battle of the entire operation, should be considered separately when one considers defeat and victory at Debrecen. It was an Axis victory, but not one of such magnitude that it rolled back the Soviet advance - so it seems honest to state that Debrecen was a Soviet victory while Nyíregyháza was an Axis victory.
More attention has been given to the results of the battle and the casualties of both sides. A careful review of the results and casualties makes clear that the outcome was in many ways a draw - the Axis traded space for time and succeeded in preventing the Soviet capture of Budapest until 1945. Killed and missing casualties on both sides are almost equal, as are gun and mortar losses. For their part, the Soviets seized one-third of Hungary and prevented the Axis from using the Transylvanian Alps as a strong defense position over the winter. While Soviet equipment losses at Debrecen and Nyíregyháza were high, such losses were replaced without great difficulty by the Soviets by late 1944. Note has also been made of the authorized strength of the three Soviet corps that made up Pliyev's Cavalry-Mechanized Group; it is lower than one might assume. As well, the incorrect statement that "three tank corps" were destroyed has been corrected to reflect that two of Pliyev's three corps were cavalry corps while the third was a mechanized corps. Even so, Pliyev had almost 400 tanks and assault guns at the start of the battle and doubtlessly lost the bulk of them between Oradea and Nyíregyháza.
Some description of the Romanian-Hungarian "war within the war" battles is also given. The roles of these two minor powers during the fighting in southeastern Europe during 1944-45 is a fascinating topic that could fill out more than a couple Wikipedia articles.
A note on sources. The German official history (Volume 8 just published), along with Erickson's Stalingrad to Berlin, Glantz's When Titans Clash, Axworthy's work on the Romanian forces, and Niehorster's work on the Hungarian forces combined to give a reasonably complete description of the battle. The Soviet official history describes the battle, but omits key information such as Soviet losses and presents little detail on the Soviet difficulties at Oradea or the destruction of Pliyev's group. Perhaps one of the best maps of the battle can be found on page 933 of the German official history.
Gaps in knowledge include a better description of the Soviet advance and crossing of the Tisza (date first crossed?) and the actions of the Romanian Fourth Army. This article needs a map of some kind as the location of Hungarian rivers and cities is not common knowledge outside of central Europe. I will create a map showing unit movements at some point in the future to better illustrate the flow of the battle. W. B. Wilson 09:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The Result looks a little awkward. A quick skim through the article makes it seem like a tactical German victory and a Soviet strategic victory. Anyone?Tourskin 07:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion on sources
Casualty figures of any era and from any source are notoriously subject to dispute. I have mentioned, in a footnote to the article, different figures listed for the Battle of Debrecen. One should realize that the footnote does not promote a particular set of figures -- it is there so that readers may see what is claimed by different sources. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- For clarification. The Soviet official history dates from 1978 (German version is 1981). I think you are mistaken about comparing the two works. Both have their own worth, particularly when it comes to comparing descriptions of military operations -- and filling in holes where the other side's official history decided to leave some material out. I left a lengthy note on your talk page regarding the sources. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Article smells like Nazi propaganda as is now
Contrary to what the article suggests, here are three facts:
1., Debrecen was the 2nd largest tank battle in military history, right behind Kursk.
2., Debrecen was a huge soviet victory, which is attested by the fact that soviets reached Hungary's capital Budapest, some 200km to the west, a little time later and then laid a siege to the fortified city, lasting two full months. If the Debrecen battle was inconclusive as this nazi-whitewash article suggests, how did the Soviet Red Army reach Budapest so soon?
3., The atrocities of soviet troops on civilians and womenfolk are exaggerated. They are mostly manufactured propaganda, based on a baltic nazi cartoon wallpaper, which depicts monkey-like, central asian faced soviet infantry, with syphillis-maddened expression, gang-raping blond teenage girls on tombstones inside a cemetary, no less, with copious amount of blooded lingerie in plain sight. This street wallpaper was widely reproduced and distributed in other pro-nazi countries during last months of WWII, to encourage people protect "european civilization against the onslaught of asian barbarism". 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)