Talk:Vistula–Oder Offensive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

European Theatre[edit]

The edit adding the reference to "European Theatre" may be misleading. The European Theatre of Operations was a US command, similar to the CBI, MTO or SWPA. I don't think it is synonymous with "the war against Germany". I suggest it be removed. Everyone can see from the map that the campaign took place in Europe.DMorpheus 18:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

lousy article[edit]

It is still a lousy article and many important elements of the offensive are missing. The map is incorrect because it includes conquests made after the offensive. I am reading a book about it, but I would appreciate some help. Andries 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I will try to provide some help. DMorpheus 00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Scope of the offensive[edit]

I am a bit confused whether the offensive included attacks by Ivan Chernyakhovsky on East Prussia that started on Jan. 13. The book by Hastings suggests but does not state that it was not part of the offensive. The book by Beevor is is not explicit either, but suggests otherwise. The offensive excludes attacks made after 2 Feb. such as the attack on Pomerania. Andries 06:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think these maps help:

They are part of a series copyrighted to Richard Natkiel, Gatrell Ltd so they can not be copied as images into this article. The talk page Talk:Prague Offensive includes a list of Soviet offensives sourced from,%201941-1945.html which ties in nicely with the maps above. BTW I know the source for the maps because Ziemke uses them in his book "Battle for Berlin end of the third Reich". As the Offensives on the talk page are similar to those in the maps, I have added the later offensives to the Eastern Front (World War II), but they still need to be stubbed as they are red links at the moment.

I have also included an link to an article called the Capture of Pomerania and Silesia, This period could be included in this article but it would cover the fighting in later Feburary and March which may or may not be inclded in this offensive, and could include the German counter offensives of Feb 16/18. On Page 45 of Ziemke's Battle for Berlin there is a map in the same series as those above showing the counter attack and the front lines during this period. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Operations details[edit]

This is a rather unininteresting subject, because it is clear why the Soviets achieved a breakthrough. I do not know what to write there except for Walter Nehring roving cauldrons. Andries 13:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Soviet losses[edit]

Krivosheev (oh, to be precise, Russia and USSR in wars of the XX century - Military losses; Moskow, "Olma-Press", 2001, available online at is sited incorrectly. The Soviet losses are not 13 476 irrecoverable, but 43 251, the number of wounded and sick 149 874, not what is stated, etc. I'm going to fix it. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerns and questions regarding recent edits[edit]

Thsnks for expanding the article but I have some concerns and questions

  • References are not expanded but the article is greatly expanded. References must be expanded too. Duffy is by far the best source, I believe
  • why was the section of about the flight of the ethnic germans shortened while the rest was expanded?
  • Same for the debate between Chuikow and Zhukov reg. the question whether the advance should be stopped. Why was it shortened.

Andries (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the references are coming.
The subject of the German population is covered in Expulsion of Germans after World War II--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 21:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, as mrg3105 stated I will attempt to fully reference everything but would add:
1. Duffy is actually the main source for the narrative of the offensive as I have written it; nearly everything I added can be confirmed from the pages cited in my existing references.
2. The section about the flight of the ethnic Germans contained material more relevant to the article on their expulsion. Here we are dealing with the direct effects of the offensive, rather than speculating about the reasons for 'revenge'. Similarly, I have not speculated about why the Germans decided to 'evacuate' the occupants of the camps, merely stated that this happened as a result of the offensive in certain areas. This article should be concerned with the offensive's immediate effects, I think.
3. This was not referenced in the article. It will be added if/when I can confirm the sources but I was more concerned with getting operational details right first.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
ad 1. please use more inline references because this was not clear for me.
ad 2. Untrue, flight during WWII is not the same as Expulsion of Germans after World War II
ad 3. I think it was referenced but that the reference was not clear to you. I will have a look.
Andries (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit of 'Flight of ethnic Germans' section[edit]

I note that someone has edited this. I'm changing it (partly) back for a couple of reasons:

  • The evacuation of East Prussia is surely far more relevant to the East Prussian Offensive than to the Vistula-Oder Offensive. If someone creates a page on the evacuations from Poland and Silesia, it can be linked. As it is, it'll be a bit confusing if someone reading about an offensive in Poland clicks on the word 'fled' and finds themselves taken to a page talking about Konigsberg and other places many miles to the north-east.
  • I'm going to change millions to 'many thousands', again as we're talking about specific areas during a specific period, rather than about the population movements as a whole.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The flight of ethnic Germans did not happen only in East Prussia but in many areas of the vistula oder offensive. I admit that the East Prussia offensive is generally not considered part of the Vistula oder offensive. Andries (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop re-inserting this section[edit]

  • Wild speculation about the reasoning of why atrocities might have happened, in terms of personal motivation of the perpetrators, has no place in this article. If you want to add something on this, look for the articles on the flight / expulsion of the Germans and insert it there. It's enough here to add that the operation caused population movement.
  • The grammar is terrible.

Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the flight is directly related to the offensive and hence should be here too. I think that Anthony Beevor did not voice wild speculation. Andries (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Beevor was writing about reasons for revenge - he wasn't writing about the Vistula-Oder Offensive specifically. As I said, any comment on the motivation for the actions of individual perpetrators should go elsewhere, there's a place for it. This is an article about a military operation, and about some of its effects (e.g. population movement). Your paragraph is related to an (alleged) aspect of the conduct of the war. Why specify it here?Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The direct consequences of this military operation should be treated here too. Where else should it be treated? Andries (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that individual Red Army soldiers might have had various motivations for mistreating civilians is not a "direct consequence" of the military operation.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It is very closely related to the offensive. A substantial portion of the book by Beevor deals with the Vistula Oder offensive. I admit that it may be a different matter if an article existed Flight and evacuation of ethnic Germans for the red army during world war II, but such an article does not exist (yet). Andries (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
How about Evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II and any number of other articles specific to certain areas?Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, I missed that, I will propose to re-name that article into Flight and evacuation of German civilians during the end of World War II. Andries (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I self reverted after moving contents and this dispute is resolved for the time being as far as I am concerned. Andries (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are to describe the fate of German minority in those regions, then the fate of raped, robbed and murdered Poles by the encroaching Soviets must be mentioned as well. --Molobo (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The German population is mentioned because they were evacuated as a result of this operation. Injustices of war are dealt with .--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Injustices of war are dealt with There is no mention of plight of Polish population which became victim of Soviet terror, arrests, ethnic cleansing in addition to plunder, banditry and rapes by Red Army soldiers. So there is still room for expansion. As they are many scholary sources that inform of this, that information won't be a problem to add to the article if we are to describe civilian situation.--Molobo (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
But, again, there are already places that this information can (or could) be accessed, such as Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-1946). I see no reason to insert large amounts of this kind of information into an article which is basically about a military plan.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Just as well they are other places were the fate of Germans is described, yet the information is here. As Poles in this article represent a far larger population that became victim of Soviets then a short paragraph about them with relevant links is also in order.--Molobo (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Beevor describes the repression and it should be linked to. Andries (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


I think the best source for this article i.e. Duffy uses Krivosheev as a source very often. If that is the case (I have to check) then I also support Krivosheev for this article, though following Wikipedia's rules relevant texts by Krivosheev have to be quoted in the reference section (and may be even translated from Russian to English). Andries (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Casualties and sources[edit]

An editing war has been going here, i asked for cited sources none have been provided. Until adequate resources are provided on this matter it will remain empty. --Nichtganz (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit: please note "citation needed", and then this "resource" . until we have actual sources, we are done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nichtganz (talkcontribs) 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The "resource" to which you are being ironic happeneds to be an online version of a book which is the most authorative contemporary source on Soviet losses in WW2. What argument could you possibly have against it? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

the lead for this article needs work[edit]

The lead should be a summary - reading it as-is, I don't know what this offensive really was or what it accomplished. Needs fleshing out. Additionally, the latest casualty-figures information should be incorporated (post-Russian archives access). HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Just did what I could. But casualty figures are listed, as normal, in the factbox. Valetude (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources for casualties[edit]

The Mcateer book is a reliable secondary source. If you think the casualties from there are wrong, go find a better secondary source.
It is ridiculous to revert the book based on personal opinion or reviews from
Also, replacing the casualties estimates from the book with estimations based on primary source data from a private website is wrong too. -YMB29 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is using a non-academic, non-referenced, out of consensus secondary source made by a lawyer with a historical hobby providing an outrageous claim that is factually impossible and contradicted by the Soviets themselves, and then pretending it to be reliable. That's quite literally, malicious intent. The Amazon reviews are the ONLY reviews of your laughable 'source'. Primary source and translation thereof on the website trumps your non-source. I go here into detail

My patience is running out for your nonsense estimate as well, again you have no arguments. Same thing applies, I will call a moderator to solve both matters if you do not start to defend your claims instead of using a circular argument (Me: "why would it be reliable if arguments XYZ." You: "stop reverting my reliable source and switching it for your unreliable primary source!").JamesRussels (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a new historical book from 2012(!), written by two actually studied historians that quote the webarchive you don't like (Human Losses in WW2 on "") in the references of their academic work: The writers of the research are prof. Hein Klemann and Sergey Kudryashov. About each of them:
Klemann: has a PhD in history earned from the University of Amsterdam, has written multiple academic peer-reviewed books and is a professor. Source: and here an older list:

The co-author of the book is Sergey Kudryashov, he is "a scientific researcher (Mitarbeiter) at the German Historical Institute in Moscow. He studied history at the Russian Academy of Sciences, and has published on the Second World War and Soviet history." Source:

This is now irrefutable proof that the web archive is reliable in every single way. This discussion should be over now. Greetings JamesRussels (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That still does not make the source reliable. It is up to you to prove its reliability. I suggest you ask about it on the RS noticeboard.
Even if it is reliable, it still is a primary source. You just refuse to understand the rules regarding primary sources...
Again, you can go contact an admin if you want, but you would have to then explain why you are unable to understand basic rules and stubbornly revert a secondary source based on your own opinion and amazon reviews...
My patience is running out too. I have given you more than enough time to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines. -YMB29 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I am about tired now of your non-existent arguments and your ignoring of mine. I just provided all the evidence why Mcateer is not a reliable source countless times, shown what professional historians think, and yet it is still not enough. You don't accept reliable professional historians over some lawyer with a hobby and no references (and no reviews except the Amazon ones?). Well that's a shame, because you're really going to have to make due in your current situation. Misrepresenting the rules and claiming some imaginary infraction is also quite humorous as it shows your inability to address the points I've made or defend your "reliable secondary source" by actually providing arguments for it (inexistent again). Mcateer is not a reliable source, goes against professional historians and has no references (or logic with that 180% casualties) for his claims. It is up to you to prove why it would be correct to insert him, and you can't. If you don't like that the two academic historians with more expert knowledge about it than you or me have accepted that source, it is up to you to disprove them and go into the physical archives yourself or show that somehow the numbers are out of consensus. I know why you don't do this, because you can't. That's fine, it's why you try to deflect with some non-issue you pretend me to commit. Your high-horse attitude throughout all these conversation have really caused me to pity you more than anything, as all that threatening with rules you cannot apply earlier will really just backfire on you shortly.

The only thing I leave open for you is that you put a note regarding "possible incomplete numbers for 1945 according to Overmans et co" like on the Seelow article. If you do not like that compromise, that's a shame because I will have to bring this case to a moderator/3rd opinion then, and he'll see how you don't put your money where your mouth is. Greetings JamesRussels (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that Mcateer is unreliable. The only thing you provided is your own opinion and speculation.
Once again, the book meets all the criteria of a reliable secondary source. The same cannot be said about your website. Why are you not asking about it on the RS noticeboard if you are so sure that it is reliable?
You would be right if the two academic historians you are talking about gave any estimates for the casualties in this operation, but they don't, so stop being misleading. -YMB29 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I just again explained why he is unreliable backed up with sources. You've ignored it again and said it was reliable without giving arguments for it except "it is so because i say so". I also just showed you how the web archive is correct and accepted by professional scholars, unlike Mcateer who isn't even a historian. It's a nonsense source and estimate for reasons mentioned in my earlier post, and which I will not mention again. Here to you have not taken upon my compromise with a note, and here too you will not get away with this disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge the facts even if they're shoved right under your nose. You've not bothered to defend yourself or your secondary source and made edits literally on your own unfounded opinion. You have also switched the goalposts, as suddenly the historians can only be correct if they give specific numbers of this battle, and not just accept the web archive with all the detailed numbers as a reliable primary source in general (which they did). This deflecting and dishonesty is not going to work. Trash sources like Mcateer do not belong on wikipedia, and your baseless opinion won't change that. JamesRussels (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice: I have asked for a Third Opinion first. JamesRussels (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What sources have you provided that say Mcateer is unreliable?
Your argument is "it's a nonsense source... I don't like it...", which is unacceptable (again see WP:IJDLI).
You still don't understand the rules regarding what sources you can use here.
You don't know if the historians you mentioned accepted the data found on the website. All you found is a footnote to that website in their book, but what do they use it for is unknown.
However, once again, even if the website has reliable data, it is still a primary source, which you can't use to get the total casualties as I have explained many times.
When both primary and secondary sources exist for the same thing, the secondary sources should be used: While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.[1] -YMB29 (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
See below. JamesRussels (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Hello. I am Martin Hogbin and would like to help with your dispute. I am not a moderator (there are none on WP) but I would like to try to resolve the dispute in a friendly way that is compatible with WP policy, by giving my opinion.

Before I give my opinion, which is not in any way binding (I am just another editor) perhaps you could both give the wording you would like to have in the article regarding casualties, the sources that support this wording, and a reason why these sources meet the criteria shown in WP:Reliable source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well for me it is really simple. The wording "650,000-700,000 total casualties (including 147,000 taken prisoner)" is based on the book by Mcateer (500 Days: The War in Eastern Europe, 1944–1945 [2]).
The book is a reliable secondary source that is used in other articles.[3][4][5]
JamesRussels insists on using this wording: "over 21,787 killed, wounded and missing (German medical reports from 11-31 January)."
He sources it to this private website, which does not meet the requirements of a reliable source (no author, no publisher, etc.).
Furthermore, that website contains primary source data. Estimating the total casualties based on that data does require special knowledge and so it is original research.
There is no need in trying to use a primary source when there is a secondary source available for the same thing.
He just does not understand the policy regarding primary sources. -YMB29 (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I will wait for JamesRussels to respond before commenting. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"What source have you provided to say Mcateer is unreliable?"
1. I've shown how the claim in Mcateer's page itself is unreferenced and unfounded. This is the first crucial flaw of the claim (otherwise any garbage source is valid just because it gives a number in its book)
2. I've shown Mcateer to be unreliable: his only reviews in existence, on the Amazon website, showcase his gigantic flaws of the book, it not being a first or even second rate source. Things like "the most extreme view on the Eastern Front" and "an incoherent and unreferenced book" meaning he goes out of consensus as well besides not being an actual historian (he is a lawyer by profession).
3. I've shown how the primary source data is reliable and accepted by two professional historians with PhDs in their most recent academic work. I've explained how you may use primary source data when it requires no "special knowledge", like now. Since all there is to base yourself upon is the troops involved in the battle itself, the order of battle. Which you quite simply add up for the respective period on the web archive like its done in other articles. Claiming otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.
4. I've shown how the historian on which the article is based upon, Duffy, shows in his book "Red Storm on The Reich" that STAVKA (Soviet Command) estimated 400,000 German casualties, which already quite high and very likely an exaggeration, as it usually is with enemy claims. So unless somehow Soviet propganda estimated enemy casualties 300,000 too low, which is an absolutely ridiculous assumption to make, you're out of luck again.
5. I've also shown how it is factually impossible for the Germans to have suffered 650-700k casualties as they never got 100% casualties in an Army let alone Army Group, and since they only had 450,000 troops available at the start of the battle regardless, which would mean almost 200% casualties at the end taken from reinforcements that you claim without any basis.
6. Lastly, getting back to the web archive again, besides it being endorsed by two reputable historians, it has also no numbers out of consensus on 31/12/44 and contains dozens of scanned Wehrmacht casualty reports on its pages, plus a whole lot of archival references "BA-MA RW x-number/row etc"

You have failed to refute every single one of these and instead deflected and went in circles by claiming I broke a rule regarding sources, and that Mcateer is reliable even though you failed to provide evidence for this, beyond saying he was used in other articles as well. Which is meaningless, since my webarchive is also used in other articles and accepted there. For instance on the Siege of Leningrad page it gives ~580,000 German casualties while historians (historian Mark Clodfeldter for instance) guestimated them at 500,000. So much for incomplete data.

Another interesting thing, similar to Mcateer being nonsense, is Richard Rürüp in his book "Berlin 1945: Eine Dokumentation" who claims 100,000 Soviets were killed at Seelow. A secondary source making a claim, surely this must be reliable too then even though enemy estimates didn't point at this right? Heh, amusing.

And that policy you quoted of wikipedia? It first refers to "secondary sources presenting the same material", while obviously, Mcateer and the archival sources differ significantly. Secondly, it says "preferred" meaning it is not always the case, specially not in such a clear one.

As for solutions, I have suggested a note about 1945 numbers possibly being incomplete with the archive data (implying so beyond the "no reporting" part in some 10 day periods of 1945).

I think I've made my point. Make your judgement now. Greetings JamesRussels (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The question still stands. All you provided again is your own opinion and analysis.
As for why the claim of 100,000 killed at the Seelow Heights is not used, it is because there are better secondary sources for that. Again, go find better secondary sources if you don't trust Mcateer. -YMB29 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. This is what I think. Neither source is particularly reliable, the Mcateer book would seem to be self published and, although it is a secondary source, it cannot be considered reliable, see WP:SPS. The web site source is a primary source, requiring some knowledge and skill to interpret and a figure based on this would be considered WP:OR.
I therefore think that neither figure can be given as fact in the article. It would be best to look for some better sources. If there are none, I think both figures could be given with clear attribution and a disclaimer. Maybe something along the lines of, 'There is considerable uncertainty over casualty figures, which range from xxx suggested in a self-published book by Mcateer (ref) to xxx indicated on a web site ...'.
You both seem keen to improve WP by making sure the information it contains is accurate so why not work together in coming up with a clear presentation of the facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the comments.
Since he is not a real historian, Mcateer might not be the best source for the casualties, but his book is not self published and I think could be used as a reliable secondary source here (like it is used in other articles).
Anyway, I will try to look for better sources, those by professional historians. -YMB29 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
According to what I found out the Mcateer book was published by Dorrance Publishing Co.. Anyone can pay them money and get a book published. Is there another publisher? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I read that the publisher was accused of having the authors pay them, but did not know that there was a wiki article where it is described as a self publishing company. -YMB29 (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright then. What I think should be done is to cite the primary source data from the webarchive with a note regarding its (in)completeness for 1945. I think I've made my points as a whole. The webarchive data, might be considered "OR" because it is created by a semi-anonymous person/group called "TF", but the website was endorsed by two professional reputable historians in their work, and that seems like reason enough to accept it, together with the fact that its numbers seems extremely accurate for other battles, and on 12/31/44, with nothing being out of consensus. Not to mention it cites archival categories and has original scanned papers on the pages.

I believe it to be much more reliable than Soviet estimates as well, like the 150k captured figure which comes from two Soviet generals' memories book from 1969 as that smells very well like propaganda, which in turn though is more reliable than Mcateer's ludicrisy since he makes more radical unbased claims that put Konev and Zhukov to complete shame themselves.

Regardless, enemy claims are never reliable for the respective army, whether they are coming from German, Soviets, or Romans. The problem with Romans is that we cannot verify them except through archeology, but here there are quite reliable seeming sources available, and the web archive seems to me like it clearly.

So at the end I suggest putting the webarchive figures at the top with a note regarding completeness, and the Soviet captured claim second (because the 10-day reports there seem to often not account for captured in 1945, not in this period at least). Greetings JamesRussels (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think if you start with something saying that casualty estimates are often unreliable, for various reasons (with a source supporting this) then you can work together to give the various estimates with appropriate disclaimers. Good secondary sources are always preferred. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There are no good secondary source claims here. If it was Frieser or something, it would be quite nice. But instead it's some lawyer who doesn't reference his claims amongst the many other faults named earlier. I think this primary source is considering all things quite reliable for reasons mentioned earlier. We can give the figure of KIA, MIA and WIA for the period until 31 January for the entire Army Group, and then put a note regarding controversial incomplete estimates in 1945. This should not be very hard to do.

Below the KIA, MIA, WIA from the report can come the Soviet 1969 claim of 150k Germans captured, but it should say it's the Soviet's claim so people take it with a grain of salt as well, like most enemy estimates. JamesRussels (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Mcateer does give a reference for the casualties, but the footnote is not available in the free preview of the book.
Ok, you don't trust Mcateer because he is a lawyer. So if there are casualties figures provided by a real historian, will you accept them? -YMB29 (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mcateer doesn't give any reference for his casualties, otherwise the [x] number would show up at the respective claim. It is non-existent. Besides not being a historian, he also has a out of consensus book with numerous flaws and self publishment based on nothing. His numbers are literally impossible.

Give another estimate here besides the STAVKA one by Duffy, and we can discuss it. All Western hisotrical books so far I've found either don't give it because it's unreliable, or cite the Soviet claim. JamesRussels (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You might want to check the link again.[6] Mcateer does have a footnote, but, again, what it says is not available online.
We have to provide what historians say the casualties were; it does not matter if they are the Soviet estimates, especially if there are no better ones available. -YMB29 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

His footnote is probably nothing more than Krivosheev's Soviet figure he cites right before it. Yes, historians. Not "historians" like Mcateer. My primary source is endorsed by actual professional historians from what I've seen. You just don't like it since it goes against the gigantic estimate others give. Also I see you edited something in again without discussing it here, probably profiting off of my week-long absence. It again exceeds reasonable plausibility and assuming the usual 2 wounded for every 1 killed, it's no different from Mcateer (without assuming it even the casualties seem to be almost 100% (excluding wounded(!)), something that seems numerically impossible again and never happened for an Army Group of any kind. It also hurts this Bahm guy that he seems to give no reference for the claim at all this time around, and the pages are not very accessible either. JamesRussels (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

He is a historian and here we go by what published historians say, not by what users like you think. -YMB29 (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You're correct this time around he is an historian, unlike Mcateer. But he seems to be just as amateuristic in this book. A quick glance at his book and its only reviews show that he provides zero, none(!) bibliography in his book. Meaning it is not even up to highschool standards regarding references, it just has none. Worse than Mcateer who at least tries to stick to basic rules. Another one: "The author also appears to rely heavily on (notoriously unreliable) Soviet statistics regarding the battle" no worries though, since him not providing any references fixes this: "although he avoids being pinned down on this as he does not include any bibliography." Quite humorous. He seems to be no more reliable than Mcateer. Also you seem to conveniently forget you have to actually prove your case, which you can't. If you cannot defend yourself on the talkpage again because you don't like logical arguments, then I'll remind you I already pointed out my source is endorsed fully by two professional historians as well, in an actually referenced, academic book. Not to menton the archive contains archival categorizations and all that yada again.

We go here by what reliable sources and historians say. Not just any "published source". And your guy there seems to not be defendable again, since he seems to go against reasonable estimates and logical arguments you cannot seem to refute. You went one step up by coming up with an actual historian unlike Mcateer, and two down by providing a source with no references or leg to stand on yourself argumentively. He is not a reliable, reputable source, and inadmissible here at this moment. JamesRussels (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, your opinion and analysis does not mean anything here. You can argue like this at some history forum, but this is not a forum.
What goes into an article must be directly supported by reliable sources. It does not matter if you don't agree with them and think what they say is completely not true (see WP:TRUTH).
The fact that you found a book that uses that private website in its footnotes does not mean much for this article, unless the authors give the casualties for this operation based on the website. -YMB29 (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussion on controversial matters. providing arguments and sources is part of the process. Something you seem to be unable to do so for a while now. You just claim it's reliable without anything to stand on, I provide arguments to the contrary and contradicting sources, which you then dismiss without retorting to. Going in circles all the time won't change the fact that your added source is amateuristic, does not provide bibiliography, and is no better than Mcateer. Mine is marginally better since two reputable historians accepted it as a reliable source and that the actual math and numbers add up and aren't out of consensus. Your rubbish doesn't hold up to scrutiny, no matter howmany times you scream "he's a historian" or not. That doesn't matter when he doesn't provide references for outlandish claims and contradicts more reliable sources I explained post after post earlier and now.

Until you find a historian who gives a number AND backs it up with a reference, your edit is moot. JamesRussels (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well again this is not a forum where you can make silly arguments and set conditions on what sources you will accept.
Find reliable sources that prove your point, if you don't like the reliable source that I added. -YMB29 (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

German Causualties[edit]

Hello, Im Gun. I studied about this operation before and i found that this article in the casualties section was edited several times by anonymous users. I can see that the edit war is going on mostly on the German casualties sector. From what I have know, The German losses of 295,000 killed and 147,000 POWS were just only from Soviet Claims announced by the STAVKA but the approximate number of deaths were unknown, and 120,000 POWS were taken. Let me know if I'm mistaken. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Those numbers look like they are from Soviet sources, but the source cited (Bahm) does not mention that these are Soviet numbers. - (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Continue to disagree: section Flight of ethnic Germans[edit]

I continue to disagree with this edit. I have read Beevor. I do not have time and energy anymore to discuss things extensively on the talk page or re-read sources. I do not want to edit war. Andries (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I invited people to comment here from there Talk:Flight_and_evacuation_of_German_civilians_during_the_end_of_World_War_II#Dispute_in_another_article_about_this_subject Andries (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Zhukov stopping the offensive[edit]

After the war a debate raged, mainly between Vasily Chuikov and Georgy Zhukov whether it was wise to stop the offensive.

What were the issues? Is there any verdict by historians? Valetude (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vistula–Oder 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User: Dennis[edit]

He used forum and dead link his info and seems like nobody check it ? Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you really checked the Soviet claims? although referenced they are more than bogus (raised for propaganda) - where are the mising and wounded? The killed are by far too high, they likely merged wounded+missing into this or someone translated losses in Soviet source into killed. --Denniss (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about your opinion about Soviet claims. But I am quite sure nobody accepts forum or deadlink as the sources. Why don't try using a book or history document for your info ?

I will delete your content unless you provide a more decent source. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)