Talk:Operation Bagration

message: How do you pronounce it in English?--Nixer 03:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Heh, what about the ending? In Russian the stress falls on the "o".--Nixer 02:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah-grah-tee-Ohn --Compay 18:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to pronounce it in English? 

message: 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)
replies: text: You are wrong there, have a look at the history of Belarus. Andreas 10:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Corrected--Nixer 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Belarus?

message: 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)
replies: text: Seconded. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded Alex Bakharev 12:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fourthed as strongly as possible. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Well, I'm sorry to say that the Russian version is rather small and unfinished--Mrg3105 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
thread_title: Perspective

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Lublin-Brest Offensive]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eastern Front & Normandy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Books say German losses much lower 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Operation Bargation losses - analysis

message: The German of "800,000" and the Soviet of "1,700,000"? 
The only one I saw is 2,300,000. (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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  POWs murdered at Bobruisk 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Update

message: 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)
thread_title: Finished

message: 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)
thread_title: Revert

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  regarding losses. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  German losses 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Losses. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overall Clarity and Style of the Article 

message: Can anyone please explain how the name Bagration is supposed to be pronounced? EriFr (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe, bəɡɹʌtsɪ'ɔn.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Losses

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: PS. Zaloga gives a total of 178,507 Soviet casualties.--Xristar (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Soviet casualties 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Revisionist history? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Operation Rail War and Concert 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Difficulty in comparing/rationalizing casualties 

message: 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)
thread_title:  502th  heavy tank battalion? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Here we go again: decisive? 

message: Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "unneeded cite to master's thesis; rm "within striking distance of Berlin" as there was still nine months to go; reduce further reading". Also some c/e. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fair point. The article claims that Bagration put the Red Army 'within striking distance of Berlin'... except they didn't get there for another nine months. Since the Soviets had no long-range bombers and had to request the Allies for strategic bombing (of Konigsberg in autumn '44, for instance, and Dresden in early '45), what weaponry did they have that could 'strike' at Berlin from their positions at the end of Bagration? Well, none, actually. So that's just inflationary rhetoric and not in any sense true. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: Terje Bruøygard. OPERATIONAL ART IN THEORY AND WAR: A COMPARISON OF SOVIET THEORY AND THE RED ARMY'S CONDUCT IN OPERATION BAGRATION 1944 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a601678.pdf
Abstract: The Soviet theories of Operational Art, developed in the 1920s and 30s, provided a solid theoretical foundation for the Red Army with regards of organization, training, and concept of fighting. Stalin's purges in 1937 stalled the development and left the Red Army ill prepared to meet the German attack in 1941. After two years of strategic defense, the Soviets turned to a strategic offensive, aiming at the decisive defeat of Germany. The large summer offensive in 1944 was the largest and most decisive operation in the war
Page 1: In 1944 the large Belorussian campaigns marked the start of an offensive that would end in a decisive Soviet victory.
Page 26: Operation BAGRATION produced a decisive result.
I hope this is clear enough to end the unneccessary endless debate. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you pushing for adding "decisive" to the result in the infobox?  Per battle infobox guidelines, we don't do that.  In years past, this used to be common in WP, but adding various quality levels to a victory ended up being just conflicts of opinions, since there's no universal objective definition of levels of victory.  Infoboxes, by design, give quick info without any nuance.  So, while many would agree this battle was decisive, this doesn't go in the infobox, just in the article.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  03:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive victory 

message: from the article  ". In a magnificent demonstration of the Soviet Red Army's mastery over the deployment of mobile troops in accordance with the Deep Battle doctrine" 
is this encyclopedic enough? 46.15.226.49 (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  encyclopedic speech? 

message: Hi Denniss, you didn't leave an edit summary in your revert of my recent edit. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was also part of the Soviet Union, as well as Belarus and the Baltic states. My edit clarified this, but yours gives the opposite impression. Can you explain? Stara Marusya (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit by Denniss 

message: There is one instance of the spelling Babruysk while there are nine of Bobruysk.  Babruysk occurs in the list of Feste Platze. 2600:1700:DE60:3320:BD56:F2FF:8E78:8FAF (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Bobruysk 

message: I just reverted a removal of this ref but anyone with access to both the 1995 and ~2015 version please verify this source for the casualties as written in infobox. Page number may be wrong for the 1995 original or the page number given matches the later revision. Denniss (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glantz an House ref in infobox/Casualties