Talk:Dnieper–Carpathian offensive

Created Article

I've created this article today. Tomorrow I will add some references, fix typos, broken links, etc. and overall improve it, so please don't delete it. You are welcome to contribute if you can before I have a chance to come back and finish it. Borg Sphere (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

why did German forces lose

ther is no summary, no conclusion, just bunch of facts without analysis.

how about MUD its as good as anything else in here. otherwise a useless articel - like many — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.224.34 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

Great job on starting this article Joe, however I don't think you were aware of the larger project of documenting all operations on the Eastern front.

This particular operation, rather then being a "Battle of Western Ukraine" Which is what the German Army called it, was actually either the strategic or one of the operational parts the following

• Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation (24 December 1943 - 17 April 1944) 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Ukrainian Fronts, 2nd Byelorussian Fronts

Zhitomir-Berdichev Offensive Operation 24 December 1943 - 14 January 1944

Kirograd Offensive Operation 5 January 1944 - 16 January 1944

Korsun-Shevchenkovsky Offensive Operation 24 January 1944 - 17 February 1944

Rovno-Lutsk Offensive Operation 1 Stage 27 January 1944 - 11 February 1944

Nikopol'-Krivoi Rog Offensive Operation 2 Stage 30 January 1944 - 29 February 1944

Proskurov-Chernovtsy Offensive Operation 4 March 1944 - 17 April 1944

Uman-Botosani Offensive Operation 5 March 1944 - 17 April 1944

Bereznegovatoye-Snigirevka Offensive Operation 6 March 1944 - 18 March 1944

Polesskoe Offensive Operation 15 March 1944 - 5 April 1944

Odessa Offensive Operation 26 March 1944 - 14 April 1944

I'd like to propose renaming the article you created to Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation, and I can help you in expanding it further if you like. The name will consistently fit into the other operations listed in Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Mrg, I know we have discussed this approach at length, but what evidence etc makes you consider here that the Soviet POV should supercede the German POV. We're supposed to reach for a neutral POV, yet here you are advocating simply substituting one for the other. What evidence makes you think the Soviet POV should have precedence here? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was never a "Battle of West Ukraine" in German military history, that's why. Besides that, the operation was a Soviet one, with German and Romanian forces yet again on the defensive. As part of this response to the Soviet operation there were many examples of such "battles" which is why I try and avoid them to those instances where they are actually appropriate, such as the battles for the festungs, or breakout battles, or battles for cities and crossings (like Bug), i.e. some event that can be isolated below the level of an Army Group! There is no prerogative to reaching a neutral POV on the name of the article, if the article is not named for any actual know event, but a general geographic region.

Also, consider the source. The full citation will read The Great Crusade: A New Complete History of the Second World War, Revised Edition (Paperback?). This book is a very general book (a reprint?), and if you look up the author, you will see that he only does two types of books, the Pacific (in which he specialises) and the general "WWII" titles. Even his The Second World War In The East is about the Far East. It is not a source to be relied on for a strategic operation on the Eastern Front, and despite the effort by the author, two Soviet Fronts were missed from the description, which I can only fault the source for, because I can see the author did read the book quite closely. So that's another why.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I named it as I did was because in the World War II task force of the Military History Wikiproject, the section of requested articles had an article with this name under it. While I was reading the book I noticed that it covered the offensive in detail, which led me to create this article using the information which I found in the book. The book seamed to be accurate and covered the Eastern Front extensively, and all the information in it which I already knew from other readings was accurate, so I assumed that this section of it would be accurate as well. If it wasn't, my apologies, you can add any information that is missing or incorrect and cite other sources. To return to the original subject of the naming of the article, if you would like to move it feel free. It does seem to make more sense that way, however other articles are often named in the way that this is, for example Battle of the Crimea (1944). This way fits in with most other articles, but I do agree that the other name makes more sense. Borg Sphere (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06 - NOTE conclusion of the previous discussion

• if you would like to move it feel free.
• It does seem to make more sense that way

Please revert your move which represents OR, as usual--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out that those comments I made in April. Since then I've had time to familiarize myself with more of Wikipedia's policies, and read discussions on other pages regarding similar renaming proposals. Please, while I am still open to having my mind changed, I have changed my positions on the issue in the last six months. Joe (Talk) 23:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See below. The discussions conducted elsewhere were misinformed and contrary to Wikipedia policies. I will be taking this issue to the Village Pump.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Another renaming

I see that you have once again moved this article to the Soviet operational name for the Offensive. However, consensus on other pages clearly shows that Soviet operational names are not preferred. You said in your edit summary that the "Battle of West Ukraine" is not used even in English, but if it is not, what is it called? Not a single source that I have (including several that I haven't had time to add yet) has mentioned the "Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation," despite their extensive coverage of the battle. While I am open to naming the article something besides "Battle of West Ukraine," consensus on many other pages has shown that Soviet operational names are unwieldy and POV. While I really would rather not get into the same old argument over the naming, I do not want this page (which I am planning to expand and take to GA or A-class after I finish some other projects), to have a name that no other pages have, per consensus among many editors. If the "West Ukraine" term annoys you so much, then please, by all means suggest another name that is more widely used and not as unwieldy and long as the current one. Joe (Talk) 21:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Even a casual search of the GoogleBooks shows three sources for the Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation by five different authors, of which only one is a Russian, and at least two are expert on the subject. Willmott is not an expert on the Eastern Front. The name is also used by the orbat.com and Axis History Forum. Maybe your contribution will correct the misuse of others.

For the record, I do not subscribe to consensus reached based on opinions of a few Wikipedia editors where it had been inappropriately conducted, such as the renaming of Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation.

Wikipedia:Consensus is about how agreement is reached, not how article quality is achieved.

It is part of the Working with others which includes:

• Civility
• No personal attacks
• Harassment
• No legal threats
• Consensus
• Dispute resolution

In the past I have been blocked because editors have refused to understand this, and chose to force their opinions into the content by ignoring that the name of the article is part of the content.

That, is governed by the Wikipedia Content standards:

• Neutral point of view
• Verifiability
• No original research
• Biographies of living persons

Under the neutral point of view, the content of the article should not represent bias, either German, or that of someone who is not a native Russian speaker. That is, a subject of the article should not be renamed on the assumption that the Wikipedia user will not be able to comprehend it, pronounce it, or identify it in any other ways. It is the job of the editors to help the reader in this, not do summarily presume a dumbification process needs to take place. The need to rename the operations is fallacious in one other logical point. While naming something with a presumably more common name may be "easier" to say, the original name is still presented in the same introductory line! This means the reader will still be reading and comprehending the proper name! What than is the purpose of creating this confusion? What is the motivation? Whom does it serve? What does it contribute to the article?

The "decision" you speak of emanates from a few editors that seem to think different rules apply to using names of operations for English-speaking Allies to Russian-speaking Allies. This is called discrimination. Anglophilia is not encouraged in Wikipedia, and should not be misrepresented as a "common English name" usage.

A reference work is supposed to inform. In the first instance any reader making the enquiry about any activity on the Eastern Front is probably prepared for not encountering any English names on either side.

Why should the name of the operation prevent it from being improved?

I am planning to take this issue to the Village Pump because it seems to get nowhere in other forums. If I fail there, I will take it to the more public forums like journals and newspapers. Given relations between the West and Russia now, the attempts to rewrite history (after all, there was no West Ukraine, ever) would be interesting.

Can you imagine the outrage if I renamed Operation Overlord to "Battle of Northern France"?

The claim of Soviet operational names being "unwieldy and POV" is not warranted. We are not here to pick and choose names. This was the name given by the Soviet command. Its a proper name. Its the only name. Just like Operation Overlord. Are you surprised that a different country had the temerity to use a naming convention of its operations to the United States or the UK? Three of the five words are English and derived from English even in Russian!

• Dnepr shows 2,410,000 Google hits
• Carpathian shows 3,190,000 Google hits
• Strategic offensive operation together show 550,000 Google hits

It seems to me that most English-speakers would not be completely lost with the name.

The issue of using common names is not applicable to events. Even if it was, it represents only a convention, and is not a God-given set in concrete law or rule to be followed slavishly by editors. Part of the reason Eastern Front is not well understood is because much of the history was written based on German accounts after the war which belittled and summarised the huge operations, notably reducing one strategic defensive and three strategic offensives to one "battle" of Moscow, two strategic defensives and two offensives to one "battle" of Stalingrad, and one strategic defensive and four strategic offensives to one "battle of Kursk". Shall we be equally describing the entirety of Allied operations after D-Day to "battle" of Paris and "battle" or "battle" of Lyons?

Even if we apply the events naming convention, it says "If there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name." All Soviet operation names are established. Agreement could not be achieved during the war due to secrecy, and after the war due to lack of communication with the wartime Allies (see Cold War). They did not require German or other Allied agreement. It is only where no name is used, such as the thousands of smaller actions that new names are created. Most often these are called same in military reports, such as "battalion X was engaged in a battle for town Y on date Z".

Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the page move. Mrg, you cannot make these moves on your opinion alone; other people have a vote. Let the discussion here progress a little, and come to some agreement, and then you may (or may not) find it ends up as a 'Strategic Offensive Operation.' Wait for some further opinions, don't take unilateral action. Buckshot06(prof) 22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another proposed move

Discussion concluded in April.

The above does not represent my opinion.

Votes are not used in determining content of articles.

You want to wait until you can gather the Manchurian candidates for the vote?

I don't care to wait because you say so--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, as I said above, I am willing to listen to you and consider a compromise (How about "Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive", for example?), but please, keep it civil. Please don't accuse Buckshot of trying to bring in other people till you have proof that he has done so, and slightly rude comments about waiting till you say to aren't particularly helpful. But, the main point of this is that yes, I am willing to compromise and I do see your point. However, the fact remains that your suggested title is long, more recognizable to specialists than readers who may not be familiar with the offensive, and unwieldy. I would be OK with Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive though, in the style of Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation, Baltic Offensive, Lvov–Sandomierz Offensive, and Jassy-Kishinev Operation. Joe (Talk) 02:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy with Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive. Buckshot06(prof) 10:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand, but I can't compromise on something which is a matter of official record. That is, the names of the operations were determined sometime between 1941 and 1945. Keeping civil has nothing to do with this. As far as I'm concerned this is an issue rooted in sources, not behaviour. If Buckshot06 or others ever brought some authoritative sources to any of these discussions, matters would be different.

As I already pointed out, the excuse that the names are unwieldy is not a good one. There are many articles in Wikipedia with longer names than that. Nor is the use of two English words, strategic and offensive, "specialist" in nature. Offensive is used 38,100,000 in conjunction with news in Google hits. Strategic is used daily in business and other areas of human activity.

The solution for readers that are not familiar with the full name of the operation is to use redirects as Buckshot06 has done, but in reverse since no one will ever look for a Battle of West Ukraine. Still, on the off chance someone does, that can be left as a redirect. You can have redirects to

• Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive
• Dnepr-Carpathian Operation
• Dnepr-Carpathian operation
• Dnepr-Carpathian offensive
• Carpathian Offensive

etc.

My point is that the title should closely reflect the content of the article (policy). Are you expanding an article about a Soviet strategic offensive operation? If you are, you will have to say so some place. So why not include this in the title as intended by the operation's planners and executors?

I'm not here to compromise or make people happy, but simply to reflect what sources say. This is why I have a disdain for consensus. People think that because they are "nice and civil" they can have a licence to rewrite history.

I try to use authoritative sources (as per policy), usually those that focus on the subject of the article or its general context. For example here I would not use any sources that deal with the Second World War in general such as Willmott because he is not an expert, and probably does not reflect best practice in research given he invented the name for this particular operation, or maybe (I don't have the book) failed to say that it was the operation that largely liberated Western Ukraine, and captured bits of Rumania and Poland as well. His book is a general overview of the war as a whole, and due to this, he can not have devoted sufficient space for this operation. :::::In essence a good source is one you can use as a citation for a specific point or fact or idea in the article. Willmott may have been a former professor at Sandhurst, but that still does not excuse sloppy writing. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Even ignoring the Willmott source (which does mention the recapture of the Western Ukraine, and parts of Romania and Poland), I have two other books, specifically about the Eastern Front, which I haven't had time to add to the article yet. Once of those is Russia at War 1941-1945, by Alexander Werth, who was Russian born and served as the BBC's Moscow correspondent during the war. Another is by Earl Ziemke, titled , Stalingrad to Berlin: The German Defeat in the East. Both of these cover the Eastern front, and this battle, in much more detail than the Willmott source. I also have references from John Keegan, Robert Leckie, and Basil Liddell Hart, which, being general histories rather than focused on the Eastern Front, cover it in less detail. Not a single one of these sources anywhere includes the term "Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive" or "Snepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation." Therefore, the way that I see it, we can either give the article a name which throws out the German name that you claim does not exist and instead give it a name which still represents the Soviet operational name, and therefore reflects the content of the article, but is easier for everyone. While it may be that "Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive" was not an operation launched by the Red Army, it still accurately represents the content of the article. Joe (Talk) 13:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

All these authors, with the possible exception of Keegan wrote at the height of the Cold War (1960s). None use correct Soviet names because literature about them was not leaving the USSR. I don't know which book by Keegan you refer to, but in all cases you need to be careful with the publication dates and identify reprints.

There is a prerogative on editors to use latest research if Wikipedia is to provide reference to current body of knowledge in any discipline. Military History is not any different in this respect to astronomy, medicine of engineering.

Ziemke for example was published by the US Army in 1968 based on two decades of consulting former Wehrmacht officers. Turn to page 507, and you will see the reason why it is not a good source. Only a few and very general Soviet works were used. The work is written from the German perspective. Consider for example the "Battle for the Dniepr Line". There was never a German Dneper Line! There is no mention of the Soviet offensive at all! Everywhere the Red Army is called Russians! The piece on the Soviet offensive starts ever so leisurely with the casual mention fo the 1st Guards and 1st Tank Armies on the second day. This was in fact the Front's operational mobile group! It was inserted into the breach created by the 24 December. The German front was ruptured on a front of 20-30km! Page 219 has a "Battle west of Kiev" map (so one would think the Soviet offensive was limited to the city. On page 222 a section starts "The Battle expands"; no, not the battle west of Kiev, but the "battle" that was the strategic sector of the Eastern Front of the Army Group South in December 1943! If you read Ziemke, "Russians" hardly did anything right in this one big "battle" spanning 1941-45. Some text is just laughable and really serves as an insult to the editors who are supposed to be US Army officers. I quote from page 227 at the bottom in "The Envelopemnt" - "On 24 January a Second Ukranian Front reconnaissance in force against Eight Army about midway between Cherkasssy and Kirovograd hit a 12-mile stretch on which the army had no more than one infantryman for every fifteen yards of front." Fronts don't do reconnaissance in force, its a tactical manoeuvre! A 12-mile front (Wehrmacht worked in kilometres so this is US editorial) is a two-infantry-division sector of front, or a better part of an Infantry Corps sector. This was not a "reconnaissance" where an entire Soviet Front blindly "hit" a weak spot the day before Christmas Day. Saying that there were only "one infantryman per 15 yards" is nonsensical since a defensive position can not be evaluated in these sort of averages...unless you are a 1960s US Army officer convinced that statistical analysis will give all the answers (read about Vietnam war ongoing at the time, and the body-count theory). I could go on, but won't.

Military History of the Eastern Front took a decidedly different turn in the West with John Erickson and later Richard Simpkin (on the theoretical side) and David Glantz. All three learned Russian to allow them access to the more freely available Soviet works starting from the Brezhnev era in the 70s. I do not want to discourage you, but I suspect that what you will get from the above collection is a German version of the Soviet operation. This article is about a Soviet operation, and can not be written from the perspective of those against whom it was conducted. Any such article will be necessarily biased regardless of your personal attempts to do it justice (of which I have no doubt you would try).

Some editors labour under the illusion that an article on an operation should represent both sides, but this is not possible to do without extreme bias. Yet again I point to the Battle of Britain.

Quite simply any army seeks to create conditions for victory, and the Red Army was no different. An attempt to fit two sides into the one article will fail, particularly in strategic operations. What you would be describing are events of the entire Army Group South on a defensive. This represents nearly the entire frontage of the Western Front.

You may wish to consider writing a separate article titled Defence of western Ukraine (1944) that will reflect the Axis defensive operations in that region, linking it here where appropriate. There are actually very few German defensive operation articles although there should be one for every Soviet offensive as there should be one Soviet defensive for every Axis offensive. This again reflects old sources written from a point of view that was hardly neutral.

I will attempt to prepare a list of Axis operations for the Eastern Front in the near future--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 17:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well then, I've ordered a Glantz book and an Erickson book, and I will incorporate all information I can find in those about the operation into the article. Perhaps I will create the article you suggested, eventually. But in the meantime, until I have some serious time to put into this article, will you agree on renaming it the "Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive"? That is, if you recall where this discussian began. If you agree with that, I will move it, take several weeks off to work on other projects here, and then return to this article to try to improve it using all available sources, including Erickson and Glantz, perhaps even focusing on them, after I determine if the books by them cover the battle sufficiently to make a good article out of it. Joe (Talk) 19:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(od) What I don't understand is why? Do you think I'm lying to you? Do you think one of the words is superfluous? What are currently called "phases" in the article were operational level sub-operations, hence the main operation was called "strategic". Its a useful qualifier that in one word establishes the scope of what the article is about. Even the most novice of military history readers would surely know that "strategic" means "really big". Just look at the B-2. In general I try to use the right words when I edit (or write) to remove ambiguity, which not desirable in a reference work. For this reason I created several articles based on the work of another US Military historian and theoretician Trevor N. Dupuy. They distinguish small unit actions, tactical engagements, operational level battles (or operations), and military campaigns that lasted from a few weeks to months. Its just that Soviet command used "strategic operation" instead of "campaign" because the Germans used that.

I really fail to understand the reluctance to use five words in the title. Do you think anyone interested will stop reading because the title is too long? I just don't know how to explain it, but the operation is that of a named event. People have names, ships have names, streets have names, so why not operations? Is it because you are used to the format of codenames? Unfortunately all the marshals are dead, so we will never find out why some strategic operations were codenamed and some were not. If someone lives on a "President George Washington drive", do you rename it "1st President's street" for convenience? It can't be changed except by a vote by the less informed Wikipedia editors who make assumptions about readers, and then administer blocks to prevent reversion to correct name. Ultimately, everything can be simplified, so Operation Krimhilde Bewegung can become "German evacuation of Crimea", but would we be providing a reference, or administering dumbification? Are we given the right to make assumptions about mental capabilities of readers (that is, each other) when we edit, or are we here just to provide facts with no assumptions?

It has been said that I am unwilling to compromise. This is not true. I just use a different process of establishing compromise, and the one I was taught in a rather respected place of higher education.

Editors often misunderstand what a compromise is in terms of editing a reference article.The primary objective is to inform and to provide correct information, both Wikipedia policies. Where authoritative sources diverge, editors should, nay must compare sources and come to some sort of compromise. For example Glantz uses different names for same operation in different books. So, the question comes up, which should be used. Given I have access to some Soviet sources, I use these to verify the English sources, and based on what I was taught during my university days, primary, or secondary sources are always a better guide than tertiary sources (Wikipedia policy). Where Mr.Glantz does not reference archival material he was/is given access to as a member of Russian Academy of Social Sciences, I generally use Soviet sources that are usually referenced to archives. Where neither name of the operation, for example a small divisional engagement, is referenced, I'm happy to use Mr.Glantz's terms since as a combat-experienced artillery officer he understands the terminology very well, and wrote a fairly good book on the subject of Soviet terminology also. This would be a compromise for me. It is a markedly different process to "lets see how many currently interested Wikipedia editors prefer this" process during which it is unusual to have sources cited "brought to bear", but often the "field expedients" of Google counts are used as if statistical analysis of a search engine can make the name of something, or its historical analysis right or wrong. Statistics in economic history is referred to as a "prostitute discipline" since almost anything can be shown to be true or false depending on how figures are considered. I'm sure that many real estate lending agents were saying from late 1990s that "everyone" is doing it as they signed up large numbers of Americans who can't afford a loan, but here we are with a world-wide credit crisis.

History, and particularly military history is not a democracy, just like Wikipedia. It is a discipline dependant on three things, research, evidence and analysis. Opinion is a foreign concept--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(od) I think Joe's idea is a good compromise for the moment. If necessary we can revisit the issue later. Buckshot06(prof) 22:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

There's a lot of talk about sources in the above discussions, but very few actual hard examples of sources (eg, author + book/paper title + page ref). It would be helpful if these were provided. The relevant policy WP:NAME should also be considered - in short, it calls for the name which is most familiar to readers being used, so citations are important as these demonstrate that the name is in usage. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Given I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of operations on the Eastern Front familiar to the average English speaker, naming conventions are hardly applicable.

Sources however do not determine the name of the event. It was determined at the time of naming. That naming did not take place in the Western Europe during the 1950s and 60s, or in Wikipedia at any time.

There is also perspective. I mentioned Brezhnev because he was the political officer in the 18th Army. Because of that, the combat history of the 18th Army was published by the Institute of Military History of the USSR Ministry of Defence. It does not mention the strategic operation by name at all so far as I can see. The general term used, and this is in fact another common Russian name for it, is Liberation of the right-bank Ukraine, and Liberation of the left-bank Ukraine. Politics creep in here of course. However as far as the Army was concerned, it was taking part in the Kiev-Zhitomir manoeuvre, and that is not used in most other Soviet or Russian works at all. Glantz translates this as "Left bank of Ukraine" in his book on deception, because its the Dnepr that cuts Ukraine in two. Glantz does not even mention the overall strategic operation in talking about the Zhitomir-Berdichev Offensive Operation, its initial operational phase. The maps used in the 1989 book were used in the symposium a few years earlier and still have a question mark against the 18th Army because it was part of the Front reserve and hence did not figure in the initial German records of the offensive. It will be interesting to see what he does in the next Colossus volume. I may contact him on that. Need to go, but I will try to compile a list by end of the week as this week is going to be a full one for me--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Returning to this, I would like to again comment on the point that Buckshot06 had made before but was unable to develop further; that "the name which is most familiar to readers being used" is the name that should be used here.

• There is no way to survey the Wikipedia readership for most familiar name on anything to do wit the Eastern Front.
• Older books by the virtue of being older will be more plentiful, and therefore in theory more familiar. However, older books also represent older research which has since been proven to be either lacking or wrong. The good thing about Wikipedia is that it can take advantage of the most recent research without having to wait to be reprinted as to printed reference works or a new edition of the CD such as Encarta. Using sources that are more familiar is therefore defeating the purpose for Wikipedia's existence. Not only that, but this will get more acute because as research is increasingly published electronically, and printed works achieve lower printing numbers due to expense, the older works will even more dominate the numbers equation you suggest.
• By your own stipulation, the current title is hardly the more familiar one to readers since I have found it in only one forum, and yet you have not voiced any reservation from using it.
• And this comes to mind. Why is the onus on me to prove that I am correct? It seems to me that I have established my knowledge of the subject area and commitment to quality. I am neither the author of this article, nor its self-declared promoter to FA grade. Surely Joe should show that the current name of the article is the one that is "the name which is most familiar to readers being used", although I would not ask it since it would be a futile task per above. My curiosity is simply this - why am I being forced to time and again defend myself although all I insist on is the adherence to Wikipedia policies?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion at all on the article's name, but you need to convince other editors that it meets WP:NAME if you want to make a contested move. Please provide some sources which support your claim that 'Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation' is the common English-language name - any recent publications would obviously carry more weight as they demonstrate that this is now the common name. The same of course goes for people who want to keep the current name or use something else again. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I keep telling people, you are looking at the wrong page -> Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Soviet operations have actual names that are no different to the codenames used by other states, except they are explicit. Some also have codenames. Some very large operations that encompass several smaller operations, and because of their symbolic value, also have common names. However, because until very recently (1980s) few operations outside of the very big once were even known in English, they do not have "common names". However, why should that be an issue? They have given names! Why would a name be invented if something has a name? What do you call chairs or trucks? No one contests these articles! So why do they contest articles with names that contain five words? This does not breach character limit in the article title as I understand it. Can I help it that some/many authors do not use the full name, or choose to make up names for Soviet operations taken from German sources? What on earth does "common" have to do with it at all?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that supports your position Mrg: it still boils down to the most common English-language name being the preferred name. Again, please provide some sources which demonstrate that 'Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation' is commonly used - even some sources which show that it is in use would help your case greatly. I've checked the handful of books I own which cover this period (When Titans Clashed, A World at Arms and the Oxford Companion to the Second World War), and none of them uses the term, though all briefly describe these battles. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the rationale for using a "common name"?

How does one establish what a "common name" is?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no science to it: just provide sources which demonstrate that the name is often used so that other editors feel comfortable with the move and don't contest it. In this instance, show that multiple English-language books/articles/etc use the term 'Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation'. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It worries me that there could be "no science" to something/anything in a reference work because we are not editing by guess-work, however?

Armies Of The Bear page 45: Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation

When Titans Clashed: p.356n Dnepr-Carpathian strategic offensive operation (March-April 1944),

Fallen Soviet Generals p.257 Dnepr-Carpathian offensive operation

Absolute War Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive Operation p.xiv

Axis History Forum In 1958 the Military-Scientific Directorate of the General Staff published the volume 3 of "Operations of the Soviet Armed Forces in the Great Patriotic War" (OSAF). It shows the strength of the Red Army before the beginning of the Dnepr-Carpathian strategic offensive operation (pp. 100-101).

Role of intelligence by Glantz it the "new strategic offensive" after Kiev and lists phases

Slaughterhouse doesn't mention it

Dupuy in his 1970s "encyclopaedia" calls it what the Germans called it "Soviet Winter Offensive of 1943-44, but forgets to mention two out of the four Fronts

The road to Berlin "right-bank" of Dnieper (the western Ukraine) or "Christmas eve....offensive operations" because he deals with each sup-phase operation and not withthe entirety of the strategic one as a whole (perspective again)

The Almanac of World War II (Brig Young) fails to mention it

Haupt in Army Group South fails to mention a 2 million men offensive by four Fronts

Buchner calls it simply winter offensive of 1943/44, but talks about "middle Dniepr"

Seaton in The Fall of Fortress Europe doesn't call it anything

A World at Arms is a very general work which I don't have

Why the Oxford Companion to the Second World War doesn't mention it, I don't know because I don't have the book. However, is it the most common book available on the Eastern Front?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Casual Googling reveals that "Armies of the Bear" also calls it "Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive" on p. 59. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mrg. Not sure whether you're keen to hear from me on this topic, but I've been following the debate and watching your arguments. I believe, semi-along with Joe, is that the 'SOO' format is very clumsy, does not read well in English, and turns mainstream readers off. I would prefer a 'X Offensive' for all of them, which follows the flow of English better. You and I completely disagree on this and this dispute has been going on for a very long time. What say you and I jointly advance a choice to those interested, either 'X S.O.O.' or 'X Offensive.' Depending on the inputs, a choice is made one way or the other - applicable from Berlin to Manchuria - and we can stop sniping at each other. What do you think? Please do not reply with a 20k tl;dr, just a two-liner yes or no will do. Buckshot06(prof) 14:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I may be willing to dispense with the "operation" part as it is roughly synonymous with the offensive at this level (in English, in Russian the word is not "offensive", but "advancing", so "Dnepr-Carpathian strategic advancing operation" is the more literal translation, but no one uses that), but the use of strategic is a given in a plan that used over 2 million troops and liberated areas roughly the size of northern France and Belgium (170,000sq.km). The sub-ops do not require strategic. Its not a matter of what you, I, or anyone else likes, or how they look in English. Its the name of the thing! It was not chosen to suit the mainstream English readers in the 21st century, as is true for a lot of things not named in English (or even some things named in English in the 19th century). Removal of strategic also serves to belittle the operations of the Red Army (oh, another operation) as is the use of "battle" in Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk articles (oh, it was just a battle). Its the recognition of the historical fact of any given combat effort that is at the core of the historical issue, not English usage. You are mostly (I think) an OOB compiler, so you may not appreciate the military history significance, but German officers did, and excluded it from their "memoirs"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. I am not a comedian, so do not use "one liners", sorry; nor is this a yes, or no, issue--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be grudgingly willing to accept a compromise on Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive, for the sake of ending the dispute. This is slightly off-topic, but would you mind referencing the information you added earlier? The only times you used ref tags were for footnotes, and if this article is ever going to get past B it will need a lot of attention to referencing - that's something we both agree on, I think. Also might it not be better to rename the "Corralation of Forces" section you added to "Order of Battle," since that appeares to basically be what it is? Joe (Talk) 01:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe, one reason I never used my degree in Political Science is because I pretty much say what I think. Don't take this the wrong way, but I am not into compromises. I am into establishing truth, or something that passes for truth based on available evidence. Please do not cite the Wikipedia mantra of "there is no truth", which is a fallacy. Best available evidence is that this was the name of the operation, and is seemingly acknowledge even in English by the sources above that I provided as requested by Nick. If you had a dispute, it was not with me, but with those sources (authors) who were negligent in conducting research to gather evidence, and hence misled you, along with many others. Hence the essay by Glantz "The Failures of Historiography: Forgotten Battles of the German-Soviet War (1941-1945)".

Yes, all will be referenced with page citations. However, this was a massive operation, and what we have now is but a start of the article. Lets expand it a bit more, and then get to citations.

Correlation of forces is not same as order of battle. An order of battle is simply the listing of formations and units that participated in the operation, and would need to be a separate article. In fact I believe Nick took it upon himself to remove all orders of battle from all articles because they are not really all that informative, but create large white spaces, and unnecessarily increase article size. I think the OOB can be left to the last as a task.

Correlation of forces is intended to state the a) troops and materiel committed, the b) roles of the forces and c) their objectives during the operation. These sections need to be added--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) Just a thought, but wouldn't the method proposed by Bellhalla here for determining the commonly used name work just as well for this one? The column headers might be "Battle of West Ukraine", "Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation", "Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive" and "Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive". I have no opinion on this but suggest this only as a possible solution. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that discussion, but decided not to participate because I thought it was silly. If a convoy was under the charge of the Royal Navy, it receives designation used by the RN. If under the USN, it uses the USN designation. There is no law that says history must be rewritten to "look neat".

History is not a neat discipline and therefore requires a disciplined approach

I'm not sure why I must compromise and be accepting of suggestions that divorce recorded history and facts from the article for sake of aesthetics.

"Battle of West Ukraine (1944)" never existed, even in the German records.

I do not care if all the other editors in Wikipedia like it, and if the entire English-speaking population of the World now thinks its a better name! Records will always show it to be an invention. Is it within the objectives of Wikipedia as a reference work to reflect fashionable use of English, or present facts?

I have already compromised, by accepting the commonly used translation of "offensive" because to use "advance" would look really "clunky" in English.

What is the actual problem? Is everyone still hoping that the average American school child wanting to find out about the Eastern Front during Second World War will not be able to find this operation? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. We are in the electronic age using a very flexible database. The article can be found by using a variety of methods including categories, wikilinks in other articles and redirects, and yet after I have provided the rationale and the sources, still I am asked to compromise.

I know, I' might go and move Operation Overlord to Battle of Northern France (1944). That looks much nicer I think. I'm sure everyone here would support me in that, right?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As is becoming the norm, the answer for my question result in a ban.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a simple, and amicable, fix that can be used here and elsewhere to prevent endless discussions on the talk pages of an endless succession of articles over this recurrent point. These suck up a great deal of editor time and it is difficult to see a net gain to the project. At the moment, for instance, there appears to be broad consensus for "Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive" which appears to meet the requirements as a succinct descriptor (even though it may not be what the Soviets called it). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I really do not want to sound patronising Roger, but this is a reference work, and not a work of popular fiction. "Simple" is not the goal, correct, is.

I am quite happy with a compromise where:

• Geographic names used in the operational name are those used in event-contemporary sources transliterated into English using current accepted form in Wikipedia. This is currently applied to other non-English named articles
• "Strategic" is included in those operations which were strategic as a necessary qualifier in the way that a grand final is used to distinguish it from quarter finals and ordinary games in say football/soccer
• Soviet or Russian sources are used to name Soviet operations, and German sources are used to name German operations. This is currently the rule applied in the North African and Western Theatre articles.

I also do not approve of your, and others' continued misuse of "consensus". Consensus can not used to change a fact. Only a divergent body of evidence that may lead to different conclusions can be resolved by consensus. So far I have been the only one required to provide evidence, which I have done. And yet you insist that a name which does not reflect the actual event be used. Why?

You are quite right though. I did intend to produce a large number of article, however I chose to start with the larger strategic operations. I have been steadfastly prevented from doing do by a number of Wikipedia editors, bated into being blocked, bullied, and forced to defend myself again and again with no other explanation except to satisfy some mythical "consensus" which I have seen many times expressed as a vote.

Yet again I ask, what, or who gave a bunch of anonymous electronic entities in Wikipedia the right to determine what something is called?

Yet again I say that if this continues (and Manchuria is not forgotten), I will take it to the Village Pump, and if not successful there, I will take it outside Wikipedia because essentially this recurrent point smacks of 1984.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, this is a contested move so you need to prove your case/persuade others. Like it or not, that's the way the encyclopedia works. The table is one way of you doing that. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Contested by whom and based on what EVIDENCE?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, this is NOT how an encyclopaedia works. It works by the following Policies and guidelines - Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research

Do you see a 'table' there?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

None of these policies say I need to accept anything any Weikipedia editor gives as opinion, and none of these policies say I need to persuade anyone if I satisfy the policies. Could it be you are wrong in your assumptions?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My take on these things differs from yours so we'll have to argee to disagree but thank you, nevertheless, for your observations. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree to disagree. If you disagree with these policies, you can go and argue on relevant pages. For the here an now you can answer the questions or accept that I am right based on the above conversation during which I have been very civil and obliging.

Now, to CLOSE this discussion, do you have sources that suggest the operation was named "Battle of West Ukraine"?

Do you disagree that the operation was of strategic significance?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the policies but with your insistence that your interpretation of them must prevail. It cannot be a coincidence that the overwhelmingly majority of editors (with whom you argue policy) disagree with you. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that neither you, nor "the overwhelmingly majority of editors" have actually participated in policy discussions at the same time I did. I also note that you don't answer questions--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

German losses

Personally, I find the number of German losses in this operation to be suspiciously low. "By the end of the operation, the Stavka had succeeded in completely destroying 18 Wehrmacht divisions, and reducing another 68 to under half of their establishment strength" - and only 30 000 - 72 000? Are those total losses, irrecoverable losses, or just KIA? Overall, in 1943 the RKKA was losing 3 soldiers for every 1 German; 72 000 compared to 1 100 000 gives about 15 to 1... Even if the German divisions were seriously understrength (say, 10 000 men each), the total losses would be in the area of 500 thousand men. I suggest removing the German losses from the infobox until we find a better source. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, after taking another look at the source I realize that those are only the casualties for part of the offensive. I will remove them until I can find a source listing them for the entire offensive. Incidentally, thank you for the citation on the Soviet figures, I appreciate that. Joe (Talk) 20:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RKKA was losing 3 soviet soldiers for one german? Highly doubt it. In 1942 - maybe, but not in 1943.99.231.50.118 (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Frieser gives 250956 overall of which 41907 are dead and 51161 missing on page 447 of "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 8" i think this would be the best data avaiable. greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.113.6 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Where can I see OKH reports? I need it to add in russian Wikipedia Bekbakbek (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Where can I see OKH reports? I need it to add in russian Wikipedia Bekbakbek (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

'Dnieper-Carpathian Strategic Offensive' as compromise title?

Both Mrg and Joe above seemed to be relatively happy with this, and it's certainly better than the current one, whereever we got that from. I'm going to move this article to the above compromise proposal in 24 hours unless there is any further input. Regards to all. Buckshot06(prof) 10:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to wait until the discussion on the main talk page has played out. mrg3105 appears to be raising objections and I, for one, would like this all done and dusted in one go. Roger Davies 08:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. (That's user:Roger Davies) immediately above, by the way.) I personally like your precedent from De/Ru wiki - simply 'operation,' or maybe 'offensive,' either way. Buckshot06(prof) 09:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I see no reason to over-complicate it, simply to compromise, when policy is clear enough.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Mrg3105 has proposed 32 article moves, including this one, here. hopefully, this will resolve the thorny Soviet Naming question once and for all. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved: per consensus at multi-move discussion at Talk:Baltic Offensive (1944)#Requested move. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I can't really comment on content, but in terms of referencing I agree with you. I've downgraded the article's rating for Milhist to C-class and have tagged places in the article where I feel citations are needed to bring it up to B class referencing standards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

German Losses are silly

It seems impossible that a rapid advance against a collapsing enemy would incur such terrible losses on the victorious side now already hardened by years of battle. To advance my position in the most blatant way possible I present to you the fact that you/who ever wrote this mess cites Glantz for Soviet losses in the whole operation but just in this battle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Korsun%E2%80%93Cherkassy_Pocket Glantz puts German losses at more than Frieser uses for the entire german operation. So either use Glantz for both sides as the prime source or use Frieser if possible. Either way its ridicilous and should be correted. 217.144.56.200 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Troops deprived from France

Frieser, 'The Eastern Front 1943-1944' Vol. VIII gives a total of about 55,000 reinforcements from France, the Balkans and Poland, but he does not provide an exact breakdown.

Liedtke 'Lost in the Mud' in contrary provides exact numbers. Context: The need to reassign resources in the wake of the second stage of the Dnieper-Carpathian Operation also proved deleterious to the Germans’ prospects of successfully defending France. The withdrawal of two panzer and one infantry divisions (349. Infanterie Division), one heavy tank battalion (507. Schwere Panzer Abteilung), and two assault gun brigades (311. and 322. Sturmgeschütz Brigades) meant that OB West (High Command of the German Army in the West, or Oberbefehlshaber West) was deprived of a total of 363 tanks, assault guns, and self-propelled anti-tank guns on 6 June 1944. Although the II. SS-Panzerkorps with the 9. SS-Panzer and 10. SS-Panzer Divisions were ordered back to France on 12 June, Allied air interdiction and damageto the French railway net delayed their arrival at the invasion front until 29 June.

The number of troops deprived from France as noted on page 228:

Sent to 4. Panzerarmee	Strength
HQ II. SS-Panzer Korps	1,491
9. SS-Panzer Division	15,987
10. SS-Panzer Division	14,785
349. Infanterie Division	11,564
507. Schwere Panzer Abt	1,000*
311. StuG Brigade	500*
322. StuG Brigade	500*

The asterisk marks the footnote given on page 227.Wildkatzen (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Apology for the confusion caused, a classic case of 'couldn't find a tree in a forest'. Wildkatzen (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• 0 bb35f 9eb5d305 orig (2).jpg
• Balka 1944 03.jpg
• Hollidt.jpg
• Hube.jpg
• Ivan Stepanovich Konev.jpg
• Kirovo10.jpg
• Malinovsky 3 Ukrainian Front.jpg
• Stalinets Ukraine 1944.jpg
• Tolbukhin Fyodor.jpg
• Wohler.jpg
• Генерал Эрхард Раус.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Vatutin nf.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Polesskoe Offensive

Please see this new article which offers a different account of the offensive to that offered in this article. Can an expert take a look please? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

Tai3chinirv7ana,

please avoid such standard remarks like User is not familiar with the topic at all hence the amateurish editing. and similar, which is not the case. First of all I did not '"randomly removed Czechoslovakia", the Czechoslovak government-in-exile was the subject, which was left there, on the other hand the subjects are not present-day countries, but the countries existed then, hence the linkes were changed (if it condisders the pre-ear area, then it has to be clearly attributed).(KIENGIR (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC))

Tai3chinirv7ana,

you should use the talk page instead of edit logs, and your argumentation is illogical at some points. The Second Polish Republic did not exist at the time, so it cannot be referred like that, same as Czechoslovakia. Regardless how the book wrote (if it refers to prewar entities, it has to be attributed as I said), or we may use close pharaphrasing a refer the actual entities existed.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC))

Very biased, uninformed editing by user "2600:100f:b12e:1537:b4a0:7972:d512:819a", without any references whatsoever.

user "2600:100f:b12e:1537:b4a0:7972:d512:819a" added a sentence at the end of sub-heading 7.3:

"Finally, the constant threat of invasion posed by the Allied buildup in England, combined with the ongoing bombing of Germany, provided enough time for Soviet forces to hold out in those crucial years from 1942-1944."

That's very biased, uninformed and without any references. Its obvious that user "2600:100f:b12e:1537:b4a0:7972:d512:819a" has no idea whatsoever of the chain of events that took place on the Eastern Front between "1942-1944".

Ever since Operation Uranus in November 1942 that encircled 6th Army at Stalingrad to June 1944, before D-Day landings, the German fronlines in the East were pushed over 1000 km westwards.

After catastrophe at Stalingrad, Operation Citadel in July 1943 was the last German gamble to retake the initiative in the East and once it failed the Germans were on full-scale reatreat with Soviets gaining strategic initiative for the rest of the war.

Prominent German Generals, such as Manstein and Guderian, wrote that after the failure of Citadel it was the beginning of the end. I'll quote Guderian from his book "Panzer Leader":

"By the failure of Citadel we had suffered a decisive defeat. The armored formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily both in men and in equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come. It was problematical whether they could he rehabilitated in time to defend the Eastern Front; as for being able to use them in defense of the Western Front against the Allied landings that threatened for next spring, this was even more questionable. Needless to say the Russians exploited their victory to the full. There were to be no more periods of quiet on the Eastern Front. From now on the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative."

One look at the situational map in the East on November 1942 prior to Operation Uranus, then on 1 June 1944 prior to D-Day landings, will show that what user "2600:100f:b12e:1537:b4a0:7972:d512:819a" wrote is pure nonsense.

Thus, in the southern sector of the Eastern Front in November 1942, the Germans were at Stalingrad and deep in the Caucasus, while on 1 June 1944, the German front was already pushed back into northeastern Romania. That's a distance of over 1,250 km.

What user "2600:100f:b12e:1537:b4a0:7972:d512:819a" wrote that Allies helped "Soviet forces to hold out in those crucial years from 1942-1944." is laughable. Seriously, in "crucial" 1943-1944 Soviets held out? Lol. The facts and situational maps from those years completely disagree. No credible historian wrote this outright falsehood.

To add further, this user did not add any citations to this self-created sentence. Finally, this sentence that user wrote is in sub-heading 7.3 "Dispatch of the majority of available equipment to the Eastern Front", where it is written that enormous German equipment losses in the Ukraine forced the Germans to dispatch the majority of new equipment to the East, which were urgently needed for the German forces in the West that were preparing for the Allied invasion, all of which is extensively referenced, with several quotations and table to support it, all added by me. What user wrote at the end of this sub-heading is completely out of context, without any citations and pure falsehood, like I wrote above.

What is a matter of fact is that for the Soviets the "crucial years" were actually 1941-1942, when they survived the onslaught of Operation Barbarossa and Case Blue.

To quote David Glantz, the foremost expert of the Eastern Front, from his work "The Soviet-German War 1941-1945: Myths and realities". Page 33, about 1941 Battle of Moscow:

"At Moscow the Red Army inflicted an unprecedented defeat on the Wehrmacht and prevented Hitler from achieving the objectives of Operation Barbarossa. In short, after the Battle of Moscow, Germany could no longer defeat the Soviet Union or win the war on the terms set forth by Hitler."

Page 55, about 1942-1943 Battle of Stalingrad:

"In comparison with the Battles of Moscow and Kursk, the Battle of Stalingrad was indeed the most important “turning point” in the Soviet-German War. The Red Army’s success in the counteroffensive and during the ensuing winter offensive clearly indicated that Germany could no longer win the war on any terms. This fact was underscored by the grim reality that, at Stalingrad and during its subsequent offensives, the Red Army accomplished the unprecedented feat of encircling and destroying the bulk of two German armies (the Sixth and Fourth Panzer), and destroying or severely damaging one more German army (the Second) and four Allied armies (the Third and Fourth Rumanian, Eighth Italian, and Second Hungarian). In the future, the Axis could neither replace these armies nor conduct successful offensive without them."

Page 65, about 1943 Battle of Kursk:

"While the Battle of Stalingrad was the most important “turning point” in the war, the Battle of Kursk also represented a vital turn in German fortunes. In addition to being the last major offensive that offered the Germans any prospect for strategic success, the outcome of the battle proved conclusively that Germany would lose the war. After Kursk the only question that remained to be answered regarded the duration and final cost of the Red Army’s inevitable victory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tai3chinirv7ana (talk • contribs) 00:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Wholly illogical editing by uninformed user "2603:7081:1601:51c2:dc44:afa3:66f9:df70"

In the infobox "Territorial changes" part user "2603:7081:1601:51c2:dc44:afa3:66f9:df70" changed the description of the first asterisk from "Soviets reclaim most of the Ukrainian SSR, expulsion of Axis forces" to "Soviets reclaim the Ukrainian SSR, expulsion of Axis forces, expulsion of Nazi collaborators Reichskommissariat Ukraine, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists".

Such editing by this user is wholly illogical. To begin with, it overloads the asterisk, which must be short and precise.

Secondly, in addition to being excessive, this edit adds extra information, which is completely pointless. The original text said- "Soviets reclaim most of the Ukrainian SSR, expulsion of Axis forces". Now this user added that in addition to "expulsion of Axis forces" there was also "expulsion of Nazi collaborators Reichskommissariat Ukraine, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists". This is entirely wrong for numerous reasons. To begin with, Reichskommissariat Ukraine is not "Nazi collaborators". It is a civil entity of Nazi Germany used to administrate occupied territory, so they're not "Nazi collaborators". This edit clearly shows that user is unfamiliar with the topic at all. In addition Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists is a political organization so expulsion of it as part of "Nazi collaborators" is factually incorrect. Furthermore, the term "Nazi collaborators" can be applied to a minimum at most to this organization, since after initial collaboration there was minimal interaction afterwards after Germans initiated crackdown on this organization.

Finally this user edited the text from "Soviets reclaim most of the Ukrainian SSR" to "Soviets reclaim the Ukrainian SSR", which is once again incorrect and shows that this user is uninformed. By the end of operation most of the Ukrainian SSR was cleared from Axis forces. Its western part in Galicia region centered around Lvov was still in German hands and it was not taken until July 1944. Thus, while most of the Ukraine was cleared during this operation, some parts remained in German hands. So by changing the text from "Soviets reclaim most of the Ukrainian SSR" to "Soviets reclaim the Ukrainian SSR" this user is once again factually incorrect.

Editing

It seems that there is only one active editor on this page who has extended this article and has recently revereted an edit I had made, accusing me of vandalism. The main reason why I removed sections was because they were either written in a non-encylopedic format or simply repeated information from previous sections. You spoke of the significance of the offensive yet the page itself was larger than the Battle of Stalingrad or Battle of Kursk pages which are generally considered to be of greater significance than the Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive.

I can discuss in greater details the reasoning behind removing each individual section if you would like although I would like to point out that one should assume that other editors are acting in good faith.Originalcola (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Serious article issues

Pinging potentially interested editors: @Neils51, GraemeLeggett, and Tai3chinirv7ana:

There is a serious issue with this article in that it goes into excessive detail on the impact of the Dnieper Carpathian offensive, providing a detailed breakdown of multiple individiual divisions and armies. This is true of every section between the aftermath and territory recaptured. Furthermore, the parts also contain irrelevant information(eg. War reparations) and a large amount of original research. The most egregious issue with these sections is that they are written in the style of a personal essay as opposed to an encylopedia. Most of the sections could simply be summarised in sufficient depth for this article by individual paragraphs in the aftermath section. The simplest solution to the previous issues would be to revert the page to this version(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dnieper%E2%80%93Carpathian_offensive&oldid=1036558964) as in the past year as this is the last version prior to the article's expansion with sections bearing the previously stated issues, with no major edits since being made to other sections. Originalcola (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't done much in the way of editing content however a revert that far back is probably going to upset a small number of editors. Perhaps an approach to take would be a rewrite of the article? If this is done with attention to references then there will be valid reasons for material being removed. Neils51 (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, only 1 editor was involved in editing this article after this edit and the main issues with the article were caused by said editor. The sections added were already summarised in sufficient detail in the aftermath and should've only required 1-2 paragraphs at most so I would call for reverting first then adding in a bit of extra information if necessary. Originalcola (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)