Talk:Operation Rösselsprung (1944)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Skorzeny

This is the first time I've heard anything about Skorzny not being involved in the Operation, even every Wikipedia article references his role in the Operation. A search through various websites containing biographies on Skorzny or the events of Rosselsprung all mention his role in the operation. I've removed your bit about that being folklore, unless you have quasi-reputable evidence in which case we can perhaps mention a controversy? Sherurcij 15:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've done quite an extensive research project on this operation, and from my references he was not directly involved. One excellent book that describes his role in this operation, as well as Gran Sasso and others, is called "Skorzeny's Secret Missions". He was heavily involved in the planning of Roesselsprung, but was not directly involved in the execution. UEL 02:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have added the clean up tag to this article as it requires some substantial work. Many claims and counter claims are listed that should be properly referenced. Much of it breaches WP:NPOV and some paragraphs need a substantial rewrite. Any questions can be left on my talk page. Woodym555 11:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I’ve split this into sections to make it easier to follow, but it feels a bit like re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic.I don’t know enough about the subject to re-write it with a NPOV, but it certainly needs it. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Did my best to reference and organize the order of battle for both sides. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Casualities

YU communist claim "more likely"? :D I just want to let you people know that the German "claims" are based on unit diaries and after action reports, also German units kept book daily on material and personel strenght, transfers and casualities so any sensible person tends to consider those "little bit" "more likely", but hey, enjoy your revisionism, i wont bother to edit this crap nor will any sensible person believe what is writen here. Its most like with the Warsaw ghetto uprising, German official day to day report names and declares basicly as martyrs for national socialist cause 13 germans during the whole "fighting" in the ghetto the "Stroop Report", yet the revisionist Zionists claim "hurdreds of germans killed". :D Just pathetic, as is this commie bs.

Cheers..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk • contribs) 19:30,5 August 2007(UTC)

"You people"? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem rather preposterous to advance political claims made by leaders of disorganized partisan forces over official unit records of professionals. : —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.32.228 (talk • contribs) 07.54,8 January 2008 (UTC)

And "disorganized"? They had, according to just this article, a command structure, an Officer Training School, and were arranged in brigades; how is that not organized? And are "professionals" less likely to spin the facts, embroider the truth, tell lies? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Germans are likely to embellish the casualty reports for propaganda reasons. The operation was, after all, another in a string of humiliating defeats in this theater. Are we forgetting that the Germans had a little something called the "Ministry of Propaganda"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Most likely the number of 213 German KIA is for the Ground Attack only, not including the looses of the Airborn Force.

both combined should add up to a number comparable to that claimed by the Partisans. 134.2.212.61 (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

casualties

|combatant2= Yugoslav Partisans |commander1= Kurt Rybka (commanding only the special forces) |commander2= Josip Broz Tito |strength2=One infantry brigade |strength1= some 3,500 German troops, several thousand Croatian troops |casualties2=Partisan claims:
500 killed
1,000 wounded
2,000 civilian casualties
German claims:
approximately 6,000 civilians and soldiers killed |casualties1=Partisan claims:
788 confirmed killed
881 wounded
50 missing
German claims:
213 killed
881 wounded
51 missing

usually 2 follows 1--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The matter is cleared up. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation Rösselsprung

Honestly, I am not sure whether "Operation Rösselsprung" ("Knight's leap") was only the name for the airborne landing on Drvar, not for other, much larger operations on the ground. This same landing is known as the "Desant na Drvar" (Raid on Drvar) by ex-Yugoslavs. I believe, though like I said I'm not 100% sure, that the Raid on Drvar/Operation Rösselsprung is just a part of the Seventh anti-Partisan Offensive. Does anyone have any info on this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrg, do you perhaps know the answer to the above? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you insist on the attacker being combatant 1 (there's no policy on that, but it makes sense), please accordingly modify the remaining 6 Anti-Partisan Operations. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the full extent of the problem. We've got three terms in use here: 1) "Seventh anti-Partisan Offensive", 2) "Raid on Drvar", and 3) "Operation Rösselsprung". The operation was much wider than the airborne raid, encompassing the coordinated drive of armored spearheads towards Partisan positions, as well as Chetnik concentrated assaults in support.
The meaning of the first term, "Seventh anti-Partisan Offensive", is known, as it encompasses the entire operation. However, the exact meaning of "Raid on Drvar" and "Operation Rösselsprung" are unclear. The meanings of both could encompass the whole of the operation, and could just as easily refer only to the airborne raid itself. Amazingly, this is very hard to clear up. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation from the book "Stvaranje Titove Jugoslavije": >>It was planned that operation "Rosselsprung" to be organized by blitz air raid to Drvar with simultaneous advancing of motorized and infantry forces from several directions, totally 20000 soldiers. Among them there were several thousands Ustashes and Chetniks.<< And there is a copy of the German document with order to 373. German division and 92. regiment (located in Bihać) for advancing. The title of the document is "Rosselsprung". So, this was code name not only for paratroopers attack on Drvar, but also for the complete operation in the area between Bihać, Knin, Livno, Bugojno, Jajce, Banja Luka, Prijedor, Bosanska Krupa. However, I do not speak German language to be 100% sure, and the document is too small to be scanned.Megaribi (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, thank you. So "Raid on Drvar" would also refer to the entire operation and not just the airborne raid? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, preferred name was "Drvar operation" which lasted for 12 days. After the para assault there were attacks to mountain Klekovača (May 27th-May 30th ). Tito escaped by airplane to Bari on June 3rd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaribi (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 June 2008

(outdent)
The spelling in the section title has been changed since I was here last; I've changed it back (and some spellings in the text). I don't know where the idea came from that the operation name should be spelt "Rößelsprung", but it isn't correct. German carries both the double-s and the eszett, to represent different sounds (one is ss, the other sz, though I’m not clear which is which), so an ss doesn’t automatically become a ß. Anyway a google search for "Rößelsprung" gives just 53 hits (compared to over 9,000 for "Rosselsprung"), and the German WP page uses the spelling "Rosselsprung", so I’d say that clinches it. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Clean Up

G'day all, I know a little bit about this one, and have a copy of several journal articles on it. Given it is a BIG thing for the Partisans that Tito escaped and the Germans blew it, I think it is important to use military analyses of the operation as much as possible. So, I have sourced a RUSI article, and two published in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, as well as the brief mentions this op gets in the main texts on this period in Yugoslavia (mainly Roberts).

My plan, as you will have guessed if you examine my edits, is to work through it para by para, adding inline citations and dispelling some well-known but errant nonsense (Evelyn Waugh was probably still writing 'Brideshead Revisited' in England when this little lot went down).

I warmly welcome any other editors who have an interest in improving this article. It is an obscure yet very interesting (to me at least) episode. Much misunderstood, and as one of the few small German parachute ops of the war, 'quite a pearler' as we say down here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, can you help with a cyrillic version of the translation of Raid on Drvar in the lede?Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. For the record, the actual term used in Serbo-Croatian is not the equivalent of "raid", but "desant", which is the Serbo-Croatian spelling of the French word "descente" (the equivalent of the English "descent" of course). The exact meaning of "desant" in Serbo-Croatian is "landing", and it is a term that is used exclusively to refer to military amphibious or airborne landings. "Landing at Drvar" would be the more accurate translation, and I am not sure whether this operation really qualifies as a "raid" as such.

The way I would organize this article is I would rename (move) it to "Seventh Enemy Offensive" or "Operation Rösselsprung" or "Operation Knight's Leap", with a large section entitled "Landing on Drvar". The landing/raid is just a part of the wider offensive operation. Thoughts? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed/moved, but the offensive was all about the coup de main airborne op. Rendulic knew he couldn't beat the Partisans at their own game at this stage, so killing Tito and destroying his headquarters was the aim of the whole offensive. The ground linkup and pursuit was in support of the airborne op and the pursuit resulted from its failure. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but still, this article isn't just about the landing. No more than Operation Overlord was just about the Normandy landings, for example... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. My plan is to continue expanding it, next will be the plans for the ground forces, then a properly sourced description of the actual operation itself followed by the aftermath. There are factual errors in the latter parts of the article which I haven't bothered correcting, as I always planned to rewrite them with sources. In the meantime I will read up on how to rename/move in accordance with the naming policy Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Help wanted: lack of sources for Chetnik involvement in this offensive

Other than the involvement of a few Chetniks in intelligence gathering before the operation and the inclusion of a few Chetniks in the glider-borne Draufganger Group that landed at the crossroads, I have been unable to find any references to other Chetniks in the ground force or the airborne assault units. Unless someone is able to bring some sources for this other than Vojska.net (which has its problems), I believe that they will need to be removed from the infobox at least. I will mention the minor involvements I have been able to source, but I'm not aware of any source that supports the inclusion of formations or even detachments of Chetniks being involved. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Either way the Chetniks in the Draufganger Group should be mentioned.. I know I read somewhere that the Chetniks moved several corps as part of the wider Axis attack in support of the Drvar raid, but that was ages ago since Tomasevich avoids covering Drvar as it was slated for "The Partisans" (such a shame that man died before his life's work was done). That's all the "help" I can provide on this question unfortunately. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Knightserbia has removed the reference in the order of battle section to Chetnik formations being on the Axis side in this operation. I have not sourced the involvement of the Chetnik brigades that KnightSerbia has deleted, so I have not restored their inclusion. However, Chetniks are mentioned by Eyre as being part of the Draufganger Group that landed by glider at the Western Cross. I have restored the Chetnik flag on that basis. If I source the involvement of Chetnik formations in the battle I will return them to the order. Any attempt to editwar regarding the Draufganger Group Chetniks without providing reliable published sources that state that Chetniks were not present in this battle on the side of the Germans will be reported. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to Operation Rösselsprung (1944)

Following agreement here (Talk:Battle_of_Kozara), I am moving this article to 'Operation Rösselsprung (1944)' per the German operation name and disambiguation with the 1942 Kreigsmarine operation of the same name. Please read the discussion for reasoning. The scope of the article will remain unchanged. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote

The hatnote from here was deleted with the edit summary "removed excess hatnote, this title is not ambiguous (WP:NAMB), it's disambiguated at Operation Rösselsprung"
If that is the case, there needs to be a link to that page; it can’t be left with none at all.
However, WP:NAMB does allow for a hatnote like the one here, "when a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator)"
So, what’s it to be? The current hatnote or a link to the dab page? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you please read WP:NAMB once again and hopefully see how what you're saying isn't making any sense? :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, so I have to spell it out. There are two Operations Roesselsprung - one from 1942, the other from 1944. When someone looks up the operation name, they end up at a disambiguation page. When someone arrives here, we know they weren't looking for the 1942 operation, so there's no need for disambiguation. Please do read WP:NAMB. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Literature and Documents section

G'day, this article is currently a GAN, please don't add a list of primary sources and non-WP:RS memoirs like Kumm's book. There is no scope for such a list in WP:MOS and Greentree's book is already in the References section. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Rösselsprung (1944)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 05:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll get started on this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• This doesn't make sense: The unit was part of the Brandenburg Division, and was staffed by ethnic Germans who spoke local languages, had many contacts with the Chetniks and Ustaše militia, and had been tracking Tito since October 1943. Leutnant (Lieutenant) Kirchner of the unit had again tracked Tito,

• rewrote this bit, have a look and see if it makes more sense now? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Don't think that Rybka is actually notable unless he earned the Knight's Cross.

• good point, only a battalion commander. delinked. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Use a en dash between number ranges, including page numbers in your notes.

• Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• You misunderstood me. The en dash is only for page ranges (numbers); the hyphen is still used for words like co-located, etc. Fix that and we'll be done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Doh. I think they are all fixed now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Missed 3, but I fixed them for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Link to 500th SS Parachute Battalion

• It was already in the lead, have linked first mention in body as well. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• This amount of detail is excessive Luftwaffe Air Command Croatia when only Luftwaffe aircraft is necessary.

• removed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Don't think section headers are really necessary when each section is only a single paragraph long.

• have done some combining of related subsections to group paragraphs together. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• While the level of coverage is fine for a GA-class article, you'll need to add quite a bit more information if you want to take this to ACR. Munoz's book Forgotten Legions had the best tactical account I've ever seen of the battle and you should consult the unit histories of the supporting units as well. Kumm's history of Prinz Eugen supposedly has a number of comments of the general planning and conduct of the battle from his perspective.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• OK. I thought there might be some questions about the publisher for Munoz (Paladin Press) and the fact that Kumm was a participant and his neutrality would be questioned. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• English-language sources are pretty limited for everything involving anti-partisan operations and you'll need to evaluate them critically for POV issues. Kumm tends to elide the brutality of his troops and sometimes glides over their failures, but is pretty good about their activities in general. He's particularly good on this battle, IIRC, because he's upset about the failures of his allies and the other German units involved and criticizes the plan, its execution and the performance of the other troops involved. I don't recall how harshly he judges his own unit or if he gives credit to the partisan defense, you'll have to judge for yourself.
• I have a lot of Munoz's books because he was the only guy in English to cover Axis-collaborationist units and activities in the Balkans, Poland, and Russia. He's also done a lot on the German security forces and documents many of the massacres committed by those units, so I think that it's safe to say that he's not a neo-Nazi. And since he often provides archival sources for his info, I tend to think that he's a fairly reliable source historically. From our perspective, he is problematic because he published a lot of his stuff through his own company and that conflicts with WP:RS. But I think that WP:RS is a pretty broad rule that tends to ignore guys like him who are doing academic-level work on topics in which the broader academic community had/has no interest. Nowadays, his stuff would fall under Holocaust studies and would probably be published by academic presses. But that's only come about in the last 15 years or so and guys like Ben Sheperd couldn't have published their books back then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• OK, they looked interesting but I wasn't sure about the scholarly aspect of Kumm and Munoz. I'll seek them out if I take it to ACR. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I have some sources on both the Croat and German air units involved as well as Western Allied air support. I noticed the contribution of the RAF and USAAF has not been acknowledged. I can add them if the nominator and reviewer agree. Dapi89 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I expect that SG 151 was the primary Luftwaffe unit involved and I have no objections to adding this info provided that it's all sourced well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Luftwaffe's operations were confined to small-unit actions. Only 13 Staffel SG 151 was involved from that unit, most of them were NSGr's (Nachtschlachtgruppen). Dapi89 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Go right ahead. BTW, the Balkan Air Force is credited in the infobox and in the Aftermath section. I'm not sure if it is unnecessary detail, but Eyre states that the glider force was towed by 1st and 2nd Squadrons of Towing Group 1, and the gliders were from 2nd and 3rd Battalions of Air Landing Group 1, all with 10-passenger DFS 230 gliders and towed by either Hs 126 or Ju 87 (Stukas in a towing role) aircraft. He also states 2nd Battalion of Transport Group 4 (2nd Gruppe of Transportgeschwader 4), with about 40 Ju 52 transports, delivered the paras. Greentree says 1st Gruppe of Stukageschwader 2, 2nd Gruppe of Jagdgeschwader 51 and 4th Gruppe of Jagdgeschwader 27 were all involved. He also mentions FW 190's, Ju-87's, Caproni 314's, Heinkel 46's and Fiat Cr 42s. I assume the Italian aircraft were flown by the NDH airforce. Just not sure why we would be adding this info? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a general pet peeve of mine that most editors have a tendency to ignore the air element. I believe all articles should include them on their order of battle regardless of their contribution. In this case Axis aviation did enormous material damage so their impact was considerable.

I believe your sources have mislead you on the size of the forces involved. The above units you have mentioned did take part. But they were not in Gruppe strength, only a number of their Staffel actually saw action. I'll check my sources and get back to you; most of them are specialist among them Peter Smith's, Manfred Griehl's work on the Ju 87 and de Zeng and co's work on the Ground and Bomber units of the Luftwaffe. Ciglic and Savic include some info on the BAF and RAF, USAAF ops.

I don't want to hold you up, so its best you guys carry on and I'll try and get beck to you asap. Dapi89 (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In general I'd like to see more detail on the aviation units that participated in a battle or campaign, but you've got to strike a balance. And that will depend on the appropriate level of detail for the article. This one is fine as is for a GA, but should have more info added for A-class, if you decide to take it there. Even then, it should probably be limited to a summary section or so covering the units, their aircraft types, and their general activities. Something like DFS 230 gliders delivered by I/TG 4 while Ju 87s of 13./SG 151 provided air support. Or P-39Qs of the 14th Fighter Group attacked elements of Prinz Eugen as they moved towards Drava.

I'm a little bit dubious about the extent of Luftwaffe participation as mentioned by Greentree although I suppose they could have been fighting the Balkan Air Force units attempting to support the Partisans. I'd really want confirmation from other sources before I added that info to the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the guidance. I'll re-visit if I look at ACR. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

The introduction says "The operation failed because the various German intelligence agencies did not share the limited intelligence available". Surely the operation failed because the Germans were outfought on the ground by the Partisans. Having this in the introduction looks like we are making excuses for them. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, as do the sources, in particular Eyre who did a comprehensive analysis. The purpose of the operation was to capture or kill Tito. The reason the paras didn't do that was that they were dropped/landed in the wrong places because they had the wrong objective (the cemetery rather than the cave) despite the fact that Skorzeny knew of the cave. This is explained in the article (as noted by several scholars on this topic). There is no doubt that the Partisans fought bravely and slowed the German ground assault down outside Drvar. Due to the poor deployment of the paras (which was based on the partial intelligence) they were unable to quickly capitalise on their short-term combat advantage in the town itself, with the result that nearby Partisan forces were able to affect the outcome and Tito was able to get away. Eyre and others suggest what the paras might have done if they knew of the cave before they jumped, but I didn't think that was a topic for the article. Happy to add it if you think it should be there. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

To (belatedly) reply to this: Eyre is a useful resource for this article, but he is writing from a very particular perspective; ie. an analysis of the event for the benefit of anyone who might want to stage the same kind of operation. So (quite rightly) he focuses on the factors that are in the planners control (intelligence gathering, force composition, organization and training) rather than those which are not (the nature and strength of the opposition). And the wealth of information on those aspects have (I think) skewed the article. A while ago) this article was the "Raid on Drvar", which was shaping up to be an even-handed account of a military action told from a neutral standpoint. Now it is "Operation Rosselsprung", a German military operation, with the attendant shift in perspective. An article on the operation (the aims, planning, organization, outcome) is fair enough as a subject but it shouldn’t be replacing an objective account of the action itself.

Secondly, simply saying the operation failed because German intelligence failed to co-operate, and the attackers lacked flexibility only tells half the story; the failure to share intelligence was an inevitable result of the internecine warfare that passed for inter-service and inter-departmental co-operation in the Nazi war machine, and that was an inevitable result of Hitler’s Darwinian approach to government. And it wasn’t just a matter of not sharing information; Szorzeny may have known about the cave, but no-one on the German side knew where Tito would be at any one time. None of them knew he had moved his quarters to Batasi down the road, and it was mere luck that he was at the cave when the attack went in.

Also the type of flexibility required would be that generally found in Special forces units; the unit involved (the 500th SS Paratroopers) wasn’t a Special Force in that sense, it was some kind of forlorn hope unit where defaulters could redeem themselves. Perfect for some dangerous/suicidal operation; not so suitable for an operation demanding a high degree of initiative and independent action. Skorzeny (who was the nearest thing the Germans had to a Special Forces commander) reckoned the operation was doomed to failure and should be cancelled; as it was he was proved right.

To simply suggest (in this article) that it would have succeeded “if only...” implies that the Germans here were capable of doing any better. Eyre was writing for a military that could; we aren’t. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

To address your first point, the title makes little difference IMO, and the article is vastly improved from this time in 2011. With respect to the editors that had contributed to that point, your assertion that it was "was shaping up to be an even-handed account of a military action told from a neutral standpoint" is unsupportable in my view. Then [1] it contained enormous factual errors and virtually no details. As far as the title is concerned, we have a choice between "Raid on Drvar" (a one-sided title drawn from the "heroic" Partisan film of that name and narrowly focused on the airborne op), the current title (admittedly one-sided but more accurate in terms of scope), and "Seventh Enemy Offensive" (which is a straight-out piece of Partisan propaganda, and as vague as you can get). The "Seven Enemy Offensives" is a schema created by the communists to focus on how heroic the Partisans were, and to build the legend of Tito. We made the decision to move away from the Partisan schema with all these operations, as they elevate particular operations above others that are just as important but did not meet the needs of communist propaganda. So as far as I am concerned, the title is as good as we are going to get. I personally would prefer not to use the operation name, but in order to make it as neutral as possible, it is the better of three evils.

On your second point, I agree that Eyre had a particular focus (the paper was originally part of his Command and Staff College work after all), and it would benefit from some expansion in respect of the role of stubborn resistance of the Partisans in the area of operations, both in the lead and the body. I will look at that now. I also agree that Hitler's divide and rule approach to command and control made it incredibly difficult for coordination between intelligence agencies. The reality is that that is always a problem, witness 9/11.

Eyre says Skorzeny believed it would fail because it was (in his view) compromised from an intelligence perspective ie the secret was out due to the re-capture of the deserter. As it turned out, it wasn't. It failed, but not for the reason Skorzeny feared.

I believe that those that have written on this operation generally are on the same page as Eyre, but I will review them to ensure I have not skewed the article, and will make necessary amendments. I appreciate your interest and feedback on the article, and hope you will have a look at the changes I make and provide further feedback. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I hadn’t realized the name "Raid on Drvar" also had a neutrality problem. And yes, the article now is a lot more detailed (and approaching GA status! Good work!)

I’m still trying to get a grasp of the Yugoslav campaign; my impression is that this was Germany's own “Spanish Ulcer”, but it’s unclear from the articles we have what the partisans were actually doing. The Yugoslav Partisan article says they disposed 650,000 soldiers in regular units and were engaged in conventional warfare; yet the articles we have are mostly on Axis anti-partisan operations, and (as you say) even the Partisan history is structured around “enemy offensives”. There’s a hint of it in the page on the Prijedor operation ie. that they had isolated the garrison there and the Axis had to mount a relief operation to save them; but even there the article is mostly on what the Axis forces were doing.

Anyway, thank you for considering my comments. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox casualty figures for the Partisans

Infoboxes do not lend themselves to properly explaining conflicting sources. That is why there is a link to the Aftermath section. That is why I have reverted the IP edits (and possibly why 23 editor did). IPs constantly disrupt and vandalise pages on Yugoslavia in WWII, perhapd you might like to register as a user. BTW, just so we are clear, if you are reverted, the appropriate action for you to take is to create a section such as this on the article talk page, per WP:BRD. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Mixed Irregular Elements"

This is probably confusing because Germans were using a curios title for Četniks at that time: Kroatische Kampfgemeinschaften, ie, Croatian Combat Groups. It was some political hocus pocus with which Germans tried to legalize Četniks in a for Pavelić acceptable form, something like what Italians did with MVAC.--Gorran (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but we still need a source. Perhaps if we identified the commander? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The First Partisan Unit to Attack 500 SS in Drvar

It was stated in text that it was 3rd Proletarian Brigade of the 1st Proletarian Division, and it was referenced with Eyre's article in JSMS (2006,353-354). I don't have the article from the journal, but in Eyre's original text, it was stated correctly: From the west and southwest came three of the battalions of the Third Brigade of the Sixth Lika Division.(pp=20-21)--Gorran (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right, and the Lika Division was Proletarian (since March 1944). Must have been a typo. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Partisan losses - contrasted sources?

Actually, there is not the case of contrasted sources between Popović, Lolić and Latas on the other side, and Odić on the other. The former use the same data as Odić,(p. 275) but they state only losses of combat units, while omitting losses of Pioneer Brigade, Guard Battalion, Officer School, and more.--Gorran (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we state that then? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You can find both data in Odić: the table of combat units losses (Odić) on pp. 275-6 - that's the one used by Popović, Lolić, Latas - and the table with added losses of other formations and institutions on p. 278.--Gorran (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've just listed it as "total" losses, as someone else may come across it and think it over states it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional information in Ground forces section

Gorran, you've added info about the 202nd Panzer Battalion, V SS Corps and some other units in this section. These details don't appear in Eyre. Can you cite them all closely please? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm on it. Please take a look after an hour or so, and notify me if something is omitted.--Gorran (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

About V SS Corps - both 7th SS and 369th were V SS Corps, and the numeration "105th SS Reconnaissance Battalion" literally means Reconnaissance Battalion of the Command of the V SS Corps. This is the operational order of the PzAOK2 (Rendulic) to V SS (Phleps). It's a common knowledge - but, (maybe for this reason) not mentioned in Odić-1981.--Gorran (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that all formations were placed under operational command of von Leyser, I wasn't aware Phleps had command of them during Rosselsprung. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That is true. These units were elements of the V Corps, tactically subordinated to the XV Corps for the operation. Shall I remove mentioning of the V SS, or mentioning of the Phleps, or both?--Gorran (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it necessary to mention Phleps or V SS Corps. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm convinced.--Gorran (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing the Relief of the paratroopers section

This section consists of one sentence, and, with the expansion of the article, it became misplaced, covering the event already described in text. So, I did not delete one in favour of the other. I preserved and included every bit of information from the sentence, and added the reference at the appropriate place. But became necessary to make this minor re-arangement of the composition. By the way, all the sources are mostly in mutual accordance. So, the intervention was not about favouring one source on behalf of the other - it was only and exclusively about composition.--Gorran (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Rösselsprung (1944). 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/20140725185337/http://znaci.net/00003/651.htm to http://znaci.net/00003/651.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Tito wanted to surrender? Ordered his Coup de grâce?

There is a probably useful source for this article authored by Slovenian historian Pirjevec and published by the University of Wiskonsin Press:

• Pirjevec, Jože (22 May 2018). Tito and His Comrades. University of Wisconsin Pres. ISBN 978-0-299-31770-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

In this work, pages 122-125 Pirjevec presents completely different story from the impression the text of this article gives about Tito and his behavior and escape during this operation. Pirjevec explains that Tito, visibly shaken, refused to retreat from cave because he panicked and even ordered his escort to give him Coup de grâce, that because of Tito's bewilderment Sreten Žujević had to use his gun to threaten to Tito to prevent his surrender to Germans. Žujević used his gun to force Tito to leave the cave. Pirjavec explains that Tito barely managed to climb the hill nearly fainting twice, crying and barely managed to climb the hill after all his men, dogs and mistresess.

Multiple newspapers in ex Yu region published same or similar stories recently. One example: Susret sa istorijom: Tito hteo da se preda Nemcima u Drvaru [Meeting with history: Tito wanted to surrender to Germans in Drvar]--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've requested some reviews of the book, but this obviously needs to be used with care. According to the Novosti article (which basically repeats what is in Pirjevec's book, and isn't an independent source of the information), Pirjevec got this information from Slavka Ranković, Aleksandar Ranković's wife, and also via Vladimir Dedijer. Both Aleksandar Ranković and Dedijer later fell out with Tito, and neither Slavka Ranković nor Dedijer can be considered unbiased with respect to Tito. Assuming the reviews come back ok, I propose dealing with this material per WP:PARTISAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. The assertions brougth and vetted by Dedijer and Pirjevec are also confirmed by Communist Colonel general Pavle Jakšić who openly criticized Tito for lack of determination, strenght, persistence and couridge in Drvar on 25 May 1944. in his memoires on the page 450: Jakšić, Pavle (1990). Nad uspomenama. Rad. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) quote:Ovolika doza »pećinske« neodlučnosti i kolebljivosti Vrhovnog komandanta - koju smo uočili i teško osetili svi mi učesnici »Sutjeske«, a koja će se još izrazitije ispoljiti u »Drvaru«, 25. maja 1944. godine - nedopuštena je za funkciju vojnog komandovanja, koje treba da je oslonjeno na odlučnost, čvrstinu, hrabrost i upornost, uvek, a posebno u teškim situacijama. The communist forces suffered heavily because of Tito's incompetence and cowardice. It caused delay in retreat which put Communist forces and their cause in danger. Thanks to Sreten Žujović and engagement and support of allied air forces this did not happen. This information, Žujović and Elliot do not exist in the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I have received a Slavic Review review of the book from WP:RSX, and it says, inter alia, " it sometimes relies on dubious sources and presents their accounts as indubitable fact. For instance, the section on Tito’s role in the Spanish Civil War (30–37) takes seriously hearsay that most historians have dismissed as proof that Tito physically found himself in Spain. In later chapters, Pirjevec refers to gossip and rumour, or the views of famous opponents like the former member of Tito’s inner circle and later dissident Milovan Djilas, the controversial historian Vladimir Dedijer, or the Serb nationalist novelist Dobrica Ćosić." This greatly concerns me, as it makes it sound as if this information is malicious gossip, especially as the sources for the information in the book are among those famous opponents of Tito, even one named by the reviewer, Dedijer. It also contains errors of fact, such as that Tito's marshal's uniform was destroyed. It clearly wasn't, because it is in the Military Museum in Belgrade. If the sr WP article on Jakšić is to be believed, he was on the General Staff of the National Liberation Partisan Detachments of Croatia at the time, and nowhere near Drvar, so this makes it hard to accept on face value. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

And if he was near Drvar, Jakšić would be biased involved primary source. Probably none of authors cited in this article were near Drvar at the time. I wonder what does author (I hope he is not member of some Socialistic Revolutionary organization) of this review say about this work in the first part of the quote you presented here. Well, that was my 5cents. I hope this brilliant, monumental biography of author who does not take sides, nor does he ask his readers to do so might be useful to present fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If not, well, its ok. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You are not suggesting that Marks21 is a reliable source are you? It seems to be a website for a political organisation. I think Slavic Review is a much more authoritative and specialised review than The Herald, and we are hardly going to use the "review" from the press that published the book, are we? You are grasping at straws here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Who is the author of the quote you presented? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Vladimir Unkovski-Korica, professor of political science at the University of Glasgow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

He is lecturer at the UOG. Member and activist of the Socialistic Revolutionary organization Marks21, a supporter of Counterfire and member of the editorial board of LeftEast. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

He is not a biography lecturer, he is a lecturer in Central and East European Studies. Where did you get that he is a member of Marks21 and a supporter of Counterfire? He is on the editorial board of the journal Europe-Asia Studies and also the website LeftEast, according to his bio on the uni website. What of it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Vladimir Unkovski-Korica is a member of Marks21 in Serbia and a supporter of Counterfire. He is on the editorial board of LeftEast and teaches at the University of Glasgow. There are dozens articles he wrote for counterfire, Marks21 .... Here is one of his articles in which he emphasizes the need to join leftists of the region to struggle together for nationalization of the banks, to organize production under government of the working class, ..... Its quite obvious why review of this author can not be used to prove unreliability of work of Joze Pirjevski. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

So, he's a Marxist. How does that make his views unreliable regarding the work of another author? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you again refuted yourself in discussion with me. You insisted on sources which "can be considered unbiased with respect to Tito". If Slavko Odić, whose works are cited more than 30 times in this article, member of wartime Communist forces and post-war Lieutenant colonel of OZNA, "can be considered unbiased with respect to Tito" then views of lecturers who are members of Marks2, Counterfire and LeftEast surely can. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Odić is being used only for military details in this article, not some gossip about Tito sourced to known enemies of Tito by Pirjevski. Unkovski-Korica has no reason to be biased about his assessment of Pirjevski's book, and he is an academic who specialises in eastern European studies. You'll need reviews of Unkovski-Korica's book or journal articles that indicate that he is unreliable because of his Marxist views. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This review of Unkovski-Korica's book by John Cox of North Dakota State University is laudatory, and makes no mention of his political views affecting his academic work. I have requested another review through WP:RX to confirm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Two other reviews of Unkovski-Korica's book, by Goran Musić of the Centre for Southeast European Studies at the University of Graz, published in the journal International Review of Social History, and by Mike Haynes of the University of Wolverhampton, in the journal Cold War History , are also laudatory, and make no mention of his political views affecting his academic work. Frankly, this argument of bias is nonsense. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am maybe wrong but I do not agree that view supported by long list of authors, many of them academy members, including Dedijer, Ćosić, Đilas, Jakšić, Ranković, Pirjavec..... can be disregarded by one review authored by young marxist lecturer. I will seek outside opinion to resolve our dispute.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

As I was asked for my 30 here (and actually recently I've been involved in a very similar discussions) it is not unusual for academics to disagree with one another, sometimes quite strongly, and even accuse one another of serious errors. Generally, a single critique is WP:FRINGE, through as usual, context is important. In this case, I gather, a younger scholar, Vladimir Unkovski-Korica, has criticized the older, Jože Pirjevec. In general, I think one or a small number of passing critical views are not enough to call an older scholar unreliable and to make him non-citable on Wikipedia. They do, however, suggest that attribution should be done. If we cite scholar X on a particular issue, and another scholar disagreed with him on it, we should certainly attribute both and note they disagree. If the disagreement is more general, ex. one scholar criticized another for general errors or bias (ex. called him an antisemite, Marxist, anti-Marxist, whatever), I think this is mostly fringe, through again, a reason for attribution. Once said critique becomes more numerous, and particularly if it is reflected in more in-depth treatments of the works or life of a given scholar, we have to be more cautious citing him in a given area. Anyway, for now, please tell me why clearly attributing who said what ("according to Pirjevec") wouldn't solve the issue? Please ping me if you respond to me. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus. The problem with Pirjevec is that per this article in Novosti, the specific allegations about Tito's actions at Drvar are sourced from known enemies of Tito, Slavka Ranković, Aleksandar Ranković's widow, and also via Vladimir Dedijer. Ranković was a Serb chauvinist removed from his position as Minister of the Interior and from the League of Communists in 1966 by Tito, one reason for which was that his secret police had been bugging Tito and other senior party members. This ended his career and influence, and he and his wife had good reason to hate Tito. Dedijer was expelled from the League of Communists in the mid-1950s over an internal factional dispute within the party, removed from the Central Committee and dismissed from his job as a university lecturer. He subsequently was allowed to self-exile. He also had good reason to hate Tito. Unkovski-Korica specifically mentions Pirjevec's use of Dedijer and other opponents of Tito as sources in the quote I provided from his review of Pirjevec's book, "it sometimes relies on dubious sources and presents their accounts as indubitable fact. For instance, the section on Tito’s role in the Spanish Civil War (30–37) takes seriously hearsay that most historians have dismissed as proof that Tito physically found himself in Spain. In later chapters, Pirjevec refers to gossip and rumour, or the views of famous opponents like the former member of Tito’s inner circle and later dissident Milovan Djilas, the controversial historian Vladimir Dedijer, or the Serb nationalist novelist Dobrica Ćosić." There is also an obvious error of fact in just the pages from Pirjevec that Antid linked above regarding Tito's uniform that was seized by the Germans during the operation. Of all the sources about this operation, Pirjevec is the only published author making these claims about Tito's behaviour in the cave and during the escape, and I consider that this makes them WP:FRINGE, and given they are from sources that have clear axes to grind with Tito, the claims shouldn't be included. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you contradict to yourself. You first say that Pirjevec is unreliable because he relies on what other (supposedly biased) authors say, including two academy members (Dedijer and Ćosić), and now you say that Pirjevec is only who makes these claims about Tito.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't. What I am saying is that in relation to this matter specifically, Pirjevec is unreliable because he uses sources that hate Tito, and because he sometimes relies on dubious sources, and refers to gossip or rumour, per the quote from Unkovski-Korica. An author can be reliable for some things, but unreliable for others. This is also an exceptional claim, so requires exceptional sources, per WP:REDFLAG. What I wrote is "Pirjevec is the only published author making these claims". You have produced no other publication that also makes these claims about Tito's behaviour in the cave and during the escape. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you do.

1. Pirjevec is only the source of these claims, sourced from known enemies of Tito: Pirjevec is the only published author making these claims vs the specific allegations about Tito's actions at Drvar are sourced from known enemies of Tito, Slavka Ranković, Aleksandar Ranković's widow, and also via Vladimir Dedijer.....Pirjevec got this information from Slavka Ranković, Aleksandar Ranković's wife, and also via Vladimir Dedijer. There is an old joke about Milka Planinc and Tito who went duck hunting. When Tito missed all ducks Milka cleverly pointed "Look, dead ducks are flying". No pun intended.

• This is a polemic and doesn't provide any published author that has made these allegations other than Pirjevec. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Near Drvar criteria?: You deny reliablity of authors (like Jakšić) who support what Đilas, Ranković, Ćosić, Dedijer, Pirjevec.... say just because they were nowhere near Drvar at the time. Jakšić is to be believed, he was on the General Staff of the National Liberation Partisan Detachments of Croatia at the time, and nowhere near Drvar, so this makes it hard to accept on face value. On the other hand, almost none of authors used in the article were near Drvar at the time of the event. To make matters ever worse, Đilas, Ranković, Dedijer and other authors of the specific allegations about Tito's actions at Drvar were exactly in Drvar at the time being. Some of them even in the cave. So this is actually double contradictory self refutal for you.

• This line of argument is completely illogical and counter-factual. Jakšić only talks about Tito's military leadership, not his behaviour at Drvar that Pirjevec talks about. On this issue, Đilas, Ranković and Ćosić haven't published these allegations about Tito's behaviour at all, as you claim, and aren't being relied upon by Pirjevec for his description of Tito's behaviour at Drvar. He is relying on Slavka Ranković and Dedijer, and neither of them have written about Tito's behaviour at Drvar either, so they aren't "published authors" in this context. As I have repeatedly said, Pirjevec is the sole author who has published these allegations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Bias of political enemies of Tito makes them unreliable but political friends are reliable: In case of authors who were political friends of Tito, such as Slavko Odić (and plenty other members of communist forces used as sources in the article) they are reliable for most important part of the article, such as military details of the operation. But in case of authors who had good reason to hate Tito they are not reliable even when presenting more realistic image of Tito.

• Your opinion about what is a "more realistic image of Tito" is unsupported and irrelevant, and displays your clear bias which you have demonstrated over many years. Neither Odić or any other former Partisans are being used to promote Tito as brave or as a military genius regarding this operation. The article makes no assertions about Tito's courage or otherwise, or about the effectiveness of his military leadership during the operation. The Partisan sources are only used to provide information about Partisan troop movements, operations and casualties. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my position, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. This is my last comment about this issue. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

As I have explained above ad nauseum, your reasoning is as clear as mud and counter-factual. It is not "everybody" who is discussing this, as usual on articles I have edited, it is just you. I'm not dissatisfied, I think my reasoning is IAW policy and reasonable and I am entirely satisfied with it. I'll be grateful for small mercies. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

CE

Another cheeky little virus shielded drive by ce, auto ed, citations scan, checked for dupe wl, moved a pic below a header. Curious about German failure, shouldn't this be Yugoslav or Partisan success as per Template:Infobox military conflict? regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it should be seen as a German-initiated operation which failed, rather than a Partisan-initiated operation which resulted in victory. The German aim was to kill or capture Tito, they failed. This is how the sources depict it as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Desant na Drvar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Unable to access source

At the very bottom of the sources Books subsection, there's this url, but it seems like the domain hasn't been purchased? GeraldWL 02:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Translation of Assault Groups

Hi guys, I do not know where the translation for the names of the different airborne assault groups comes from, but as a native German speaker I would like to put out that GREIFER does not mean attacker, it means "grabber" or "picker". 77.13.115.234 (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)kookee

Thanks, it came from the source, as far as I can remember. I'll adjust it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Casualties in the infobox part 2

The infobox does not list casualties for the Allied side, instead pointing the reader to the Aftermath section. According to an old talk page discussion, this is because different sources give differing numbers. That may have been true at one time, but right now we have only a single set of numbers: "The Partisans suffered losses of 67 dead, 308 wounded and 14 missing, and Allied units suffered 60 dead, 74 wounded and 20 missing".

I'm going to go ahead and put the numbers back in the infobox. If there is still some good reason not to do this, please discuss here. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read the article. The casualties in this operation (not Operation Flounced) are disputed between the sources. That is why it said that. Reverting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)