Talk:Prague offensive

message: What was the original name of that operation? Was it Operation Prague (Operatsiya Praga) or Prague Operation (Prazhskaya Operatsiya)? Halibutt 12:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Soviet encyclopedies refer to it as Prague Operation (Prazhskaya Operatsiya). Therefore I'd like to ask Philip about the reasons of the move of the page. 
I am totally baffled with the total absence of the name in English-language sources. Google search for ("operation prague" + front)  gives miserable numbers of hits, vast majority of them are translation from Russian and some actually refer to "Prague Spring". And (front + "operation prague") actually gives nothing relevant at all. 
Hopefully, there are a couple of links that refer to Prague Offensive. So probably it would be the proper name. 
In Soviet  Encyclopedia of the Great Patriotic War (Великая Отечественная война 1941-1945. Энциклопедия. М., "Советская Энциклопедия", 1985) its full name is "Prague Offensive Operation", (Пражская наступательная операция, prazhskaya nastupatelnaya operacia). 
Maps: http://rkka.ru/maps/tv24.gif http://rkka.ru/maps/praga.jpg
By the way, 
http://www.fireonthevolga.com/Red%20Army%20casualties,%201941-1945.html
has the following useful list:
  
Red Army Casualties, 1941-1945
Total Armed Forces Losses, June 1941- May 1945
Killed in battle or died during evacuation: 5,187,190 
Mortally wounded (and died later): 1,100,327 
Died of illness (non-battle): 541,920 
Missing in action or captured: 4,455,620 
Non-mortal wounds: 15,205,592 
Non-mortal illness and frostbite: 3,138,556 
Total Armed Forces Casualties: 29,629,205 
Equipment Losses, June 1941- May 1945
Tanks and self-propelled Guns: 96,500 
Artillery: 218,000 
Aircraft: 88,300 
Soviet Losses in the Major Battles of the War
The Defense of Kiev (July-September 1941): 700,564 casualties; 411 tanks, 28,419 artillery pieces, and 343 planes
Battle of Smolensk (July-September 1941): 344,926 casualties; 1,348 tanks, 9,290 artillery pieces, and 903 planes
The Defense of Moscow (September-November 1941): 658,279 casualties; 2,785 tanks, 3,832 artillery pieces, and 293 planes
Siege of Sevastopol (October 1941-July 1942): 200,481 casualties; no data on equipment losses
Rzhev-Vyazma Offensive (January-April 1942): 776, 889 casualties; 957 tanks, 7,296 artillery pieces, and 550 planes
Kharkov Offensive (May 1942): 277,190 casualties; 652 tanks, 1,646 artillery pieces, and n/a planes
Battle of Stalingrad (July-November 1942): 643,842 casualties; 1,426 tanks, 12,137 artillery pieces, and 2,063 planes
Stalingrad Offensive (November 1942-February 1943): 485,777 casualties; 2,915 tanks, 3,591 artillery pieces, and 706 planes
Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive (November-December 1942): 215,674 casualties; 1,655 tanks, n/a artillery pieces, and n/a planes
Kharkov-Belgorod Offensive (March-August 1943): 255,566 casualties; 1,864 tanks, 423 artillery pieces, and 153 planes
Battle of Kursk (May-July 1943):177, 847 casualties; 1,614 tanks, 3,929 artillery pieces, and 459 planes
Lower Dnepr Offensive (September-December 1943): 754,392 casualties; 2,639 tanks, 3,125 artillery pieces, and 430 planes
Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive (January-April 1944): 313, 953 casualties; 462 tanks, 1,832 artillery pieces, and 260 planes
Crimean Offensive (April-May 1944): 84, 819 casualties; 171 tanks, 521 artillery pieces, and 179 planes
Belorussian Offensive (June-August 1944): 770,888 casualties; 2,957 tanks, 2,447 artillery pieces, and 822 planes
Baltic Offensive (September-November 1944): 280,090 casualties; 522 tanks, 2,593 artillery pieces, and 779 planes
Budapest Offensive (October 1944-February 1945): 320,082 casualties; 1,766 tanks, 4,127 artillery pieces, and 293 planes
Vistula-Oder Offensive (January-February 1945): 194,191 casualties; 1,267 tanks, 374 artillery pieces, and 343 planes
East Prussian Offensive (January-April 1945): 584,778 casualties; 3,525 tanks, 1,644 artillery pieces, and 1,450 planes
Vienna Offensive (March-April 1945): 177,745 casualties; 603 tanks, 764 artillery pieces, and 614 planes
Berlin Offensive (April-May 1945): 361,367 casualties; 1,997 tanks, 2,108 artillery pieces, and 917 planes
Prague Offensive (May 1945): 52,498 casualties; 373 tanks, 1,006 artillery pieces, and 80 planes
Source: 
Glantz, David M., and Jonathan House. When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler. (Lawrence, Kansas: UP of Kansas, 1995)
Glantz, David M. Kharkov 1942: Anatomy of a Military Disaster. (Rockville Centre, NY: Sarpedon, 1998)
Glantz, David M. Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars. 1942 (Lawrence, Kansas: UP of Kansas, 1999)
Mikkalai 00:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In English Operations can be either "Operation ABC" or "ABC Operation", but as a convention on Wikipedia, we seem to have settled on "Operation XYZ", so I see no reason why Soviet operations should be different. It makes finding the articles a little easier. "Prague Offensive" would be get my vote, but there are many people who write articles for Wikipeadia who prefer to use the operational names eg Talk:Operation Corporate. Sometimes the main article is at the name of the battle like the Battle of Normandy with a redirect from Operation Overlord, sometimes it is at the name of the operation Operation Market Garden with a redirect from the battle name Battle of Arnhem. As a general rule thought for security reasons, the operational name is a code name, so in the examples you have given, I think that if the name is "Prague Offensive Operation" I would drop the word Operation and go with "Prague Offensive".  There is one problem though with this naming convention which is none NPOV. If it is the "Prague Offensive Operation" for the Russians it is the "Prague Defensive Operation" for the Germans. "Prague Operation" or "Operation Prague" implies a missing word of initiated or offensive and carries the same connotations. This connotation is not there if the term Battle of Prague is used. Articles using Western Allied operations carry the same POV connotations, but a lot of native English speaking people do not seem to realise this because Anglo-American books, TV histrical programs and newspapers use such terms all the time. However as the WWII receeds into history the Anglo-American media is starting to adopt German terms like the second happy time so I don't think that "Prague Offensive" should cause any problems.  As most of the Soviet campaigns are not well known in the English speaking world (with the exceptions of the big Battles), you are free to trail-blaze the naming convention :-) --PBS 02:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prague Offensive Operation

message: On the Ferdinand Schörner page I added:
:On the May 8 an OKW colonel, was escorted through the American lines to see Schörner. The colonel reported that Schörner had ordered the men under his operational command to observer the surrender but that he could not guarantee that he would be obeyed everywhere. Later that day Schörner deserted his command and flew to Austria where on the May 18 he was arrested by the Americans.
Since I added this text which is sourced from "Battle of Berlin end of the Third Reich" by Earle F Ziemke, I have seen other sources which says that he formally surredered Army Group Centre to the Soviets on May 10 and then flew to Austria. Both can not be right. If you know the answer please post it with the source to Talk:Ferdinand Schörner, because it effects this page, the Schörner page, Army Group Centre and end of World War II in Europe. --PBS 19:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Schörner desert his command 

message: My involvement with this so far has been concerned with the Memel Offensive Operation, one of a variety of articles I've recently (re)written. In this case, I disagree with its recent revert to Battle of Memel, for a variety of reasons:
*There's no real evidence that "Battle of Memel" is a common phrase in English - Google Books gives only two occurrences, neither of which of have anything to do with the 1944 action. The article's original creator provided no rationale for naming it as such, and neither did the editor making the recent revert other than citing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Naming conventions. There was a siege, or blockade, of Memel, but it was - well, merely an outcome of the Memel Offensive Operation. Both this and the lack of any proven English name invalidates the application of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Naming conventions here, I think. 
*The article's narrative, as I expanded it, is largely about the deployment of elements of the 1st Baltic Front, and their advance, during the Memel Offensive Operation - a Soviet military operation of which the city of Memel was one of the objectives. Much of the remainder of the operation took place to the south and east of the town - its scope extended as far southwards as the Neman. This means that 'Battle of Memel', while giving a vague idea of the geographic scope, is inaccurate. 
*In favour of 'Memel Offensive Operation', it's referred to as such in both Glantz and (in translation) Krivosheev.
I think there has to be a test of reasonableness here, which has wider application to all related articles. 'Battle of Memel' is neither terribly descriptive of the action the article covers, nor is there any evidence to suggest it's commonly used in English. Indeed, I think it constitutes OR to refer to it as such. There is, however, a strong argument for using the soviet nomenclature (or a variant of it such as 'Memel Offensive'). Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly would support Memel Offensive rather than Battle of Memel. It's when things get to the point of 'Lower Dneiper Strategic Offensive Operation' that I'm concerned about. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Battle of Memel'

message: 100%? Not a single German soldier fled, dropped his uniform, and marched home? Come on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "All"? 

message: The map is bad. Why should a WW2 era Map show the 1948 (and not even correctly, both german states were declared in 1949) borders? It should either show the political borders from after the invasion of Poland or the pre-war borders.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.210.148 (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: This edit  by user:Jaan on 20 July 2009 added a sentence:
Since then it has been slightly alerted but the substance remain the same. When it was added four citations were given. Does this one sentence need four citation, or could they be replaced with one? -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, four sources are definitely needed. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. There is no question the claim is exceptional; 500 POWs murdered by the "good guys." Even in war time this is exceptional. Even these sources may be questioned; if not unreliable, then at least not neutral. If we had access to other sources written with less admiration for these heroic freedom fighters in SS uniform, the story might get a totally different spin. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Hiio & Kaasik would do as the prime reference for the statement, however, it does not feature the number of deaths. The White Book is the prime source for the number of documented deaths. The rest of the sources are, perhaps, of secondary importance. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonian POWs 

message: Can anyone elaborate on this? I am wondering what the role of the US consisted in (except taking prisoners), and which source describes that. I admit there are some lacunae in my education, but, if no sources and explanations will be provided, I will have to revert that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This perhaps? Srnec (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This source says that "Eisenhower ordered American forces to halt at the Karlovy Vary - Plzen - Ceska Budejovice line". Although some American units broke his order, I see no evidence that they participated in the Prague offensive proper, i.e. that they attacked Schörner's group in Prague.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no evidences have been provided that the US army advanced far beyond the Karlovy Vary - Plzen - Ceska Budejovice line (a line that goes near South-West Czech border, I doubt the US can be considered as a participant of the battle.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The name "Prague Offensive" suggests more than just a battle for a city to most English readers. If the Americans were advancing on Prague in Czechoslovak territory simultaneous with a Soviet advanced from the other direction, and if the Americans and Soviets were allies, the reasonable reader may ask why the American action does not constitute a part, however small, of the "Prague Offensive", or why we do not have an article on American operations in Czechoslovak territory. Now, I am aware that this is not how the term "Prague Offensive" is used, but then it is not used very much (in English). The term "operation" would seem better than "offensive", but I'm not sure it is used. Srnec (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, however, you considerations can be equally applied to, e.g. the Battle of Berlin. The Americans were advancing on Berlin in German territory simultaneously with the Soviets, and they were the allies. However, they definitely didn't participate in the battle proper. Going back to Prague, the Karlovy Vary - Plzen - Ceska Budejovice line goes along Czech south-west border, and the Americans did stop at this line (similar to Elbe in Germany).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that advancing on X would seem to most English-speakers to constitute an "X offensive", however limited, but a battle of/for X is just some fighting, however intense, in and around X. I don't think that anybody would expect that advancing in the direction of Berlin means you fought in the Battle of Berlin, but I do think people would expect that if you crossed the border advancing in the direction of Prague you were engaged in the Prague Offensive. My point was that "Prague Offensive" might not be the ideal name for this operation. Srnec (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Karlovy Vary of Ceska Budejovice are too far from Prague to claim that they were around Prague. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that the Americans engaged in any fighting around Prague or in the battle for Prague, or for that matter in the so-called Prague Offensive. I'm saying that the name "Prague Offensive" strikes me as overblown for the action it describes, if indeed it is basically only about the battle in and around Prague over a few days. Perhaps it makes more sense in Russian. Srnec (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? The name is "Prague offensive", not "Czech offensive". The distance from Berlin to Elbe is similar to the distance from Prague to Plzen. In both cases the Americans were advancing to Prague and Berlin, acordingly, and stopped at considerable distances. Why are you comfortable with "The Battle of Berlin", and are uncomfortable with "Prague offensive"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of everything you've said: "Battle of Prague" is a more intuitive name for this operation in English, although it doesn't appear to be used much. Srnec (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you are right. Try to propose article's renaming. I'll support it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We should use the names that are commonly used in English language sources. The trouble is that there are not many sources so the name was chosen based  on the Soviet name (See above #Prague Offensive Operation). The Soviets had specific designations to a much finer granularity than the English speaking nations for actions such as this, that was in their parlance an offensive (They also had much finer granularity for many other things eg while there is one word "pocket" to describe pockets in English, the Soviets gave them different designations depending on the size of the units enveloped a pocket/cauldron). Wikipedia uses the Battle of Berlin because it is the common English language name for what the Soviets described as the Strategic Offensive Operation (capture of East Germany) and a more minor "Offensive Operation" to capture the city of Berlin (for which I used the descriptive name Battle of Berlin#Battle in Berlin). If we were to use names that had some sort of internal consistency within Wikipedia it is doubtful if the Battle of France the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic would all be designated battles (as one is a land campaign, one an aerial campaign and the third a navel campaign (Burma Campaign, Big Week, Pacific War). all six are named as they are because those are the common names for all six. This article is about much more than the Battle for Prague, and the name "Battle of Prague" makes about as much sense as calling the "Battle of France" the "Battle of Paris". -- PBS (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor belligerents 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Prague 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/20130114130824/http://www.just.ee/orb.aw/class%3Dfile/action%3Dpreview/id%3D12709/TheWhiteBook.pdf to http://www.just.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=12709/TheWhiteBook.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924104801/http://www.prlib.ru/en-us/History/Pages/Item.aspx?itemid=527 to http://www.prlib.ru/en-us/History/Pages/Item.aspx?itemid=527
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) 17:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: On the sector on the Prague Uprising it says Konev declined american support because it would violate the agreed borderline between US-soviet forces. What borderline was that and when was it agreed? Firestar47 (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  American non-action