Talk:Battle of the Dnieper

message: Okay, the V1 of this page is finally there. It can and should be improved:
To do:
* Proofread!!! (you can help!!!)
* The article's connexions with other parts of WW2 series is unclear. 1943 battle of ukraine does not even exist and battle of Kiev is a little more than a stub based on a video game (!!!). Ultimately, I shall expand both, but it will take some time.
* The attack map is under construction, but it will take me some time to finish it. Found an OK one on the web...
So I put the article in Wikipedia anyway, especially since it's a little more than a stub anyway, even as of now ... ^_^ Grafikm_fr 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Hello, at the section "Western bank operations" the Picture caption is "The German Heer delivers fire across the Dnieper.". Heer links to the present German Army (Heer). The present german army was (according to the wikipedia article) established in 1955, i think it should be linked to the Wehrmacht article, also the Description links to Wehrmacht (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hitlerdnieper.jpg). If this is acceppted, maybe someone can change it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.64.67 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture caption 

message: This article has been fully protected for about seven weeks, extremely long for wikipedia standards. No progress has been made in the discussion for the last two weeks. Are the parties moving toward mediation or some other form of dispute resolution? If not, then I will formally request unprotection. Calwatch 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a failed arbitration attempt on top of it as well (recentely turned down ). Personally I would not mind it being unlocked provided that a certain user would not continue to destroy the page' history with reinserting tags again and again. --Kuban Cossack  00:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll unprotect this.  There's no sense in protecting articles for months on end.  What's the point of having a wiki and then stopping people from editing it? --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove protection?

message: # AndriyK 07:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I would like to resolve the dispute and I will participate in the mediation process

message: I have removed the dreadful Liberation word. Those who care are looking for the possibilities to work on the articles, those to care to stop works are putting tags. abakharev 12:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely said. //Halibutt 13:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You will see that it will not still be enough for AndriyK... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the article is okay with its new wording.  Perhaps (as I suggested during his arbitration request) AndriyK has a case for adding "liberation" to Words to avoid. --Tony Sidaway 13:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would be a safe choice if you asked me. As I already pointed out, either we allow the usage in all cases where it's used in literature, or we prefer safer, more neutral wording in all cases. That's a fair solution to me. //Halibutt 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, it is a choice to make. And by definition of choice it has to be collective - so it won't be up to you-know-who to decide... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It was not removed since it never was there. Alex replaced it in a section but not in the intro... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which does not answer the question of why was it removed... //Halibutt 19:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That I don't know. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreadful L-word (Liberation) 

message: A while back I made a rather extensive edit, that was reverted at first but I believe Grafik ended up saying he would integrate it with some more sources (see here). I would like to see this happen now that the article is unprotected. Also, I still feel strongly that the article should be redirected to Battle of the Dnieper, as we discussed extensively. heqs 03:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As answered previously, no problem with the move for me (although I would rather suggest Battle of Dnieper for a title) As for other mods, well, I guess we'll have to wait until all the POV-pushing about "vile stalinist occupation" will be over, by a mean or another... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure "Battle of the Dnieper" is more correct gramatically, whatever its other qualities. Kirill Lokshin 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Battle of the Dnieper it is then :) However, as you can guess, it is only a minor problem, and there's a bigger one to be dealt first... <_< -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it's "plus les choses changent, plus elles restent les mêmes!"... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You can move over a redirect if the redirect has no edit history, so it should be OK. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Update: I moved it. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, cool, I didn't know that. heqs 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My old edit and proposed move 

message: I have to protect the article again. It is really a shame that such a fine article should be a subject of the revert war due to such a minor matter. Please find a compromise on the talk page. As for me all the variants are acceptable including the total exclusion of the dreadful L word abakharev 21:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you will notice, Alex, is that the current protected version was corrected. "L*** of Kiev" in a section was replaced with "Battle of Kiev", a precision was added: "Liberation from Nazi occupation" and so on. Therefore, attempts were made to make this dispute to an end. However, that's what defines POV-pushers: a complete lack of negociation and dispute resolution. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected again 

message: I filed a Mediation Cabal file to see if consensus can be reached with people able to do so... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: As the article has been protected for weeks and the mediation request was rejected and there seems to be no ongoing discussion, I'm unprotecting this article. --Tony Sidaway 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: It's worthless as far as German casualties go. If they are estimated by your "rule of thumb" method described in the lower section of the article, I strongly suggest to remove them altogether because that is a very, very vague technique and highly unlikely given the numbers. Compare 1.25 million Germans total force employef to 1.25 million highest estimate of casualties... that'd mean every German died, got wounded or taken prisoner. Completely unrealistic.
:You're absolutely right, high estimate of complete annihilation is ridiculous, I'll leave only the low estimate. And I change the word liberate in the intro to something more fitting, the Ukraine did not welcome the Soviets as liberators any more than Eastern Germany did. Wiki1609 (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't researched beyond Glantz and Erickson and some of the older stuff which didn't take account of Soviet sources.  The "reasoning" in the last section strikes me as a good faith effort, but perhaps it should be removed nevertheless?  Because of the complexity - different definitions of the duration and scope of the battle overlapping with different evaluations of which sources are more reliable - any sort of "musing" about which figures are low and high could only be comprehensive and fair if it went on for a few paragraphs.  Obviously the info-box demands its numbers, but a very large range could be put in for both sides there, and then the casualties section could matter of factly state the numbers cited by the most generally reliable German and Soviet sources, and the most accurate historians (here I'm thinking Glantz and Erickson but that's my opinion) with a simple one-line caveat that the geographic and chronological 'limits' to the battle/campaign can contribute to wide variations in the casualty estimates, in addition to the usual fiddling of the figures by both sides.  99.192.64.87 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem with the casualty figures is that this is a soviet-centric article which presents events based on postwar soviet histography rather than from a military history perspective. As is the case with many of these battles, geography and chronology are played with to create a politically appropriate narrative. Whats wrong here is the *entire* attempt to present this as one "battle" or one operation. Because it just isn't.12.12.144.130 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: casualty section

message: The number of Soviet KIA seems far too high, and it isnt even mentioned in the aftermath section. 72.196.193.123 (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet KIA 

message: The lead states "the casualties are estimated at being from 1,700,000 to 2,700,000 on both sides.". Isn't that the total number of casualties? I think this can be read as meaning 4-5 million casualties. --Mortense (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 million casualties? 

message: The article mixes the two spellings, i.e. "Battle of Kiev" link.  In English, the common spelling is Kiev, not Kyiv.  The English Wiki should reflect this, should it not?   I'll wait for feedback before changing it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiev vs. Kyiv 

message: From the lead:
: ... Zhukov who supposedly wanted to drown all Ukrainians in the Dnieper.
Is that fitting for such an article? --Mortense (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know what the other references say? The Pravda from Ukraine don't look like the best source for contentious claims. By the photo with the Nazi officer with the local population they don't look very neutrals. Vinukin (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I think its entirely fitting for this article. After all, the most credible figure for German casualties is arrived at by original research. And the article as well claims that the high estimate for German losses is 100% (all of them apparently died). 12.12.144.130 (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fitting? 

message: The entire article is garbage. Beyond just being unreadable, it offers no coherent narrative of the operations covered. It also has terrible problems with perspective. Its way too soviet-centric and depends almost exclusively on soviet sources. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  article needs a rewrite 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of the Dnieper. 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/20100330193710/http://www.soldat.ru:80/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_10_1.html to http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_10_1.html#5_10_22
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) 23:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Battle of Dnieper as such did not exist as a military campaign, it may have referred to several Red Army Offensive Operations in and around Dnieper in Soviet historiography, but its not definied in current academic works as far as I'm aware.
According to Krivosheev, "Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses" from the time of 24 August 1943 – 23 December 1943 on what the article claims to be the "Battle of Dnieper" he list following losses:
Chernigov-Poltova Strategic Offensive Operation, 26 Aug. - 30 Sept. 1943
102,957 killed, 324,995 wounded and sick, total: 427,952
Lower Dnieper Strategic Offensive Operation, 26 Sept. - 20 Dec. 1943
77,400 killed, 226,217 wounded and sick, total 303,617
These two, were the major Red Army Offensive at time, all other Offensive Operations listen between the time frame of "24 August 1943 – 23 December 1943" having less then <50,000 casualties at most. It simply does not add up what the article is claiming and thus I've removed it. TwilightPliskin (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I find it laughable that the Polish IP 94.254.130.215 reintroduced the revisionistic and apologia memoir by calling me "Fixing vandalism made by troll user" see:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Dnieper&diff=next&oldid=774226284
He also reintroduced several unsourced and misrepresented paragraphs that I have removed before. TwilightPliskin (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manstein Reference 

message: Hi, on this talk page there is a source that states that the entirety of the Dnieper Operations : The Chernigov Poltava and Lower Dnieper offensives had about 180,000 total killed, 103,000 Chernigov 77000 Lower Dnieper, as well as around 550,000 sanitarry cases. However, in Soviet Operational Phases in the actual article there are two sections not included. The Donbass Operations and the Kiev Operations. Including those, I get a total from purely wikipedian sources of 848,469 sanitary losses and 274,667 KIA. I have not edited the article but I wanted this information to be there to look at. Is this correct or am I missing something?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E0CC:8300:44FF:B664:A5DF:12C0 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: Recently, on 5 March 2023, this user made 3 edits on this article, which are entirely wrong. His edits are regarding the German casualties during the battle, which the editor claims is "incomplete" and then proceeds to add astronomical number of German casualties during this battle.
For starters, this user adds in brackets that the number of 372,000 German casualties during this battle, which are in fact accurate, is "incomplete data". The number of 372,000 casualties comes from Forczyk's The Dnepr 1943: Hitler's Eastern Rampart Crumbles book, a fine work from a quality author, who extensively uses German primary sources stored at National Archives and Records Administration (NARA for short) stored in Washington DC. This includes data on losses of Heeresgruppe Süd and its armies during this battle. So the user saying it is "incomplete data" is plain wrong.
Then this editor writes in the casualty section that German losses were "749.458 total casualties, including 283,082 killed or mising (excluding SS and Luftwaffe units casualties)". The source for this is the link to the Wayback Machine about "Human Losses in World War II". The link actually shows stats for "Soviet POWs in the OKH Zone of Operation East, 1943", which are taken from Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv (BA-MA), stored in Freiburg. I wonder how does that show German losses, lol. The number itself of "749.458 total casualties" of the Germans during this battle is completely wrong. It may be accurate in other ways, such as the overall losses of the Ostheer for certain period or losses of certain Heeresgruppen for certain period, but this editor specified none of this and just wrote this number in purely vague manner.
Finally, in the "Outcomes" section of this article, this user wrote that "German personnel losses are clouded by the lack of access to German unit records, which were seized at the end of the war. Many were transferred to the United States national archives and were not made available until 1978, while others were taken by the Soviet Union, which declined to confirm their existence." That's another pure nonsense. The German records, at both NARA and BA-MA, are readily available for anyone interested, for numerous decades now. Their availability everyone can see in this very article- in the edit of 23 April 2022, I personally added the strength numbers of German forces involved in this battle, straight from NARA.
Tai3chinirv7ana (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by user "2001:EE0:4A61:6AB0:880C:EA03:B1CC:8FE2"