- Military history
- Hitler's Invasion of Russia in World War Two
- Czech president bans US ambassador from Prague Castle
- Operation Bagration | WarWiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia
- Stanford Libraries
Operation Bagration named after a Georgian prince in the war against Napoleon years earlier was not just one of the largest military offensives of the war, it was one of the most sophisticated.
On 19 June , Red Army partisan units, operating behind German lines, attacked transport and other Wehrmacht supply lines; two days later the Soviets launched massive air attacks; and then on the 23rd one day after the third anniversary of the German invasion the Red Army moved forward under cover of darkness. Soviet advance caught the Germans by surprise. The Soviets pushed forward in powerful spearheads leaving enemy units isolated behind them — a tactic that was made all the more effective because of a tactically disastrous decision Hitler had made.
The German leader had ordered the soldiers of Army Group Center to stand firm and inflexible in the face of any Soviet advance. The commander of the German Ninth Army, General Jordan could scarcely believe the nature of the order he had been given. The defeat was as calamitous as any suffered by the German armed forces during the Second World War.
By the end of the operation most of the western Soviet Union had been liberated and the Red Army had achieved footholds in Romania and Poland. Oh wow, Wikipedia citing some website citing Wikipedia. Shorter version of this comment: lol. German Reich , thousand soldier and officers, including , thousand nonreturnable loss killed and prisoners.
In any case the German Wiki gives "Die deutschen Verluste betrugen etwa Translation The German losses amounted to about , lost, , soldiers and officers given in 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. How do you pronounce it in English? 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 , 12 July UTC.
The move to " Belorussian Offensive " was unwarranted. 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.
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 , 10 December UTC.
Hitler's Invasion of Russia in World War Two
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 , 7 June UTC. Part of Operation Bagration - 1st Bel. 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.
- RELATED CATEGORIES!
- Africa under colonial domination, 1880-1935.
- America’s First Air Battles : Lessons Learned or Lessons Lost?.
This statement is factually incorrect and ought to be deleted. No units were transferred from the Western front until December although most armoured replacements and reinforcements were sent east after July, and some armoured units were indeed transferred from the Italian front. Are we still fooled by the Stalinist propaganda and the Lukashenko's government? Enough already?
- The Price of Experience: Writings on Living with Cancer.
- Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.
- 10 Secrets to Healthy Hooves.
- The Most Significant Battles of WW2 - HistoryExtra;
Aside from the books, link on spam blacklist removed says: "All told, Operation Bagration cost Hitler , men including 31 generals , plus hundreds of tanks and more than 1, guns. Of the men lost, , were taken prisoner".
Czech president bans US ambassador from Prague Castle
Are other Eastern Front articles also using Soviet propaganda numbers? 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. Further, article says "For an offensive of this scope, the Red Army assembled rifle divisions, eight tank and mechanized corps, 13 artillery divisions and six cavalry divisions, a total of approximately 2.
Operation Bagration | WarWiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia
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. I see now I had to use another search criteria, because some other pages showed now no  for example, see my first post. But the result is the same. 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.
That's all. Learn now and bye. 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 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? Esdrasbarnevelt talk , 21 December UTC. 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 th, 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. 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 , "losses" including roughly , prisoners. This sounds about right if we assume that:. This gives a very, very conservative estimate of , for frontline troops lost east of Minsk. Factor in Vilnius, Molodechno, Baranovichi and the other post-Minsk actions, plus losses of support units, and , looks pretty good. Here's the problem, though - as for whether this would certainly include wounded is another matter: Mitcham also gives ,, but states that this is killed and POW ie. I'm convinced that Zaloga gives , wounded somewhere else on top of the ,, by which I think he means 'irrecoverables', but don't have my copy to hand.
I'll check it later. If we allow for , wounded on top of , killed and captured, we get , losses out of about , total in AGC. 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, tanks and more than 1, artillery pieces.
German mapower losses are estimated at ,,, including about , captured. 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.
All of the sources I listed here. It's ,, but generally focusing on about ,, with ,, 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. Incidentally, I don't know where the casualty figures in the original article i. In the absence of anything conclusive I just let them stand for the time being until something everyone could agree on was thrashed out.
Esdrasbarnevelt talk , 22 December UTC. Rokossovsky, Lieutenant General M.