Talk:Vistula–Oder offensive

message: 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)
thread_title:  European Theatre 

message: 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)
replies: text:  I agree completely. I will try to provide some help. DMorpheus 00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lousy article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Scope of the offensive

message: 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)
thread_title: Operations details

message: Krivosheev (oh, to be precise, Russia and USSR in wars of the XX century - Military losses; Moskow, "Olma-Press", 2001, available online at http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/) 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)
thread_title: Soviet losses

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edit of 'Flight of ethnic Germans' section

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Beevor describes the repression and it should be linked to. Andries (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop re-inserting this section

message: 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)
thread_title: Krivosheev

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Casualties and sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just did what I could. But casualty figures are listed, as normal, in the factbox. Valetude (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  the lead for this article needs work  

message: 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 171.7.205.7 (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Those numbers look like they are from Soviet sources, but the source cited (Bahm) does not mention that these are Soviet numbers. -12.222.63.34 (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Causualties 

message: 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)
thread_title: Continue to disagree: section Flight of ethnic Germans

message: 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)
thread_title:  Zhukov stopping the offensive 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060410215142/http://www.onwar.com:80/maps/wwii/eastfront2/vistula-oder.htm to http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/eastfront2/vistula-oder.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060410215142/http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/eastfront2/vistula-oder.htm to http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/eastfront2/vistula-oder.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor is edit warring to change "Nazi Germany" to "Germany" as one of the combatants in the infobox.  My feeling is that "Nazi Germany" is the correct name for the country that was at war at that time -- the pre-war Germany bloated with the parts of various countries given to it, or taken by force.  If we were talking about World War I, the "German Empire" would be the appropriate name. "Nazi Germany" is specific and unambiguous in a way that "Germany" is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nazi Germany" versus "Germany"

message: This is a fatal mistake, as it says that Poland had been previously captured by the Soviet and now was recaptured? It doesint make any sense really, what happened was that Soviet occupied land that was previoisly occupied by Germans nothing else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.131.198 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland recaptured 

message: The following sentence does not make sense:
:The offensive was brought forward from 20 January to 12 January because meteorological reports warned of a thaw later in the month.
There is no way that there was any form of 2 week weather forecast in 1945.  Even today, such forecasts are entirely unreliable, in 1945 they were completely nonexistent.  This cannot be correct. --Gerrit CUTEDH 19:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrase on meteorology does not make sense