Talk:Operation Iskra

Casualties Edits
There were several repeated attempts to add in the casualties as they were claimed by Sovinformburo on 17/01/1943. I cannot believe the editor thinks they are OK for the infobox. WP:MILMOS clearly states that sources should be "secondary works by reputable historians".

It is common sense, that any wartime broadcast, whether it is German, Soviet, Allied or any other, cannot be accurate due to very incomplete information available at the time of the publication. In addition any wartime public broadcast will very likely to exaggerate enemy losses. 81.158.11.56 (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Uses German 10-day casualties reports
Don't use them. These are a primary source, that does not directly link to casualties in operations. They had a time lag, were inaccurate, and did not record all casualties. To avoid going into OR, use reliable secondary source.D2306 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Soviet losses in the Krivosheev's book - is the summation of the Soviet reports about the 10-day losses (Krivocheev writes about it in his book), it is a complete analogue of 10-day German reports. Soviet 10-day casualties reports had a time lag, were inaccurate, and did not record all casualties. Therefore, if the Soviet losses are indicated by a 10-day reports (is incomplete), the German data must also be taken from 10-day reports.
 * Please do not write such obvious nonsense. The German casualties reporting was completely different from Soviet casualties reporting, and Krivosheev's work is not a mere summation of the 10-day losses. Not to mention the Soviets didn't use "10-day losses". If they did, they would have had a 4 month time lag for 1941 battles like the Germans did for Bagration. Or perhaps we should use 10-day reports for German losses in Bagration - the german casualties would be tiny then! Except for some 300 thousand listed as missing much later in autumn...


 * But in any case, you are missing the point. The work by Krivosheev is a secondary source which is recognised as being reliable. The 10-day reports are a primary source, and using them directly constitutes original research, which is against rules on Wikipedia. The German equivalent of Krivosheev is the study by Overmans (which unfortunately does not do per operation casualties), which unsurprisingly gave a casualties figure much higher than what is recorded in the 10-day reports. So Glantz (also a secondary source) is a better source than 10-day reports and should be used. D2306 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, do not Russian nationalism in the English-language Wikipedia.

The numbers of Soviet losses in Krivosheev' book - is a simple summation of 10-day Soviet reports (writes about himself, page 6 of the 2001 edition - in Russian), for 1941-1942, the Soviet 10-day reports are absolutely untrue. Therefore Krivosheev's Soviet losses in the period 1941-1942 are extremely low. No need to specify individual cases of delays 10-day German reports as widespread. The group of armies "North" was not a delay in the 10-day reports in 1943. These data are fully reliable.

Glantz is not an authoritative source for the German losses. If you stand numbers Glantz, you must provide a scan of the page with the numbers of German losses in the operation iskra. I only have his book about the operation mars, I do not want to read his other books. Since Glantz does not like to deal in detail in the figures. His data on the ratio of army forces and losses of opponents constantly with large gaps and can not make up the whole picture.

I'm wondering if you have a book to which you give a link to wikipedia and which the German losses are there? Maybe the entire Army Group North during the entire January 1943? In his work about the operation Mars many rough unacceptable errors for the serious historian in matters pertaining to the Soviet and German losses. Much more authority in this matter N. Zetterling. Niklas Zetterling (I hope you know who that is?) analyzed a 10-day German reports on the eastern front. They are absolutely valid for 1941 - 1944 with a few exceptions. and his work is in the public domain, you can read it free, unlike many books Glantz.

Universally recognized German losses in the operation Bagration - 399 000, is the sum of loss of 10-day reports, just be delayed until October 1944.

In any case, if you insist on numbers Glantz, you must first provide a scan of his book with these figures. Remember, too, secondary sources are quite different. It all depends on the author. And trust them without verification is impossible! I believe that in this case the German 10-day reports are much more authentic.

R. Overmars? do not talk about his work. This is not an official publication of the German Federal Ministry of Defence. it's just a private citizen, I know like Russian historian Boris Sokolov (often quoted by Glanz, Zetterling, Frieser, and many others. Sokolov so famous in the west historians although he annoys a lot of people in Russia). Sokolov like Overmars, he has only one goal: the extremely exaggerated loss of population. So Overmars figures should be compared with the figures of Boris Sokolov. You must use the official data of Germany: 4.2 million dead German soldiers, of whom 2.6 million on the eastern front during the war (including 1.1 million killed or died in Soviet captivity). A comparison of numbers of private individual Overmars with official Krivosheev - absolutely not true. So the official numbers of dead soldiers are: 2.6 million Germans and 8.7 million Soviet. This is a valid comparison with comparable sources.

If you do not agree, we need a third opinion (this should be a neutral party, not your friend from Russia with an English nickname, or a fan of mother Russia). Let us will judge our Western colleagues. I think you have a pro-Soviet position, and you are not impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yura2404 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are once again missing the point completely. Your wall of text is your personal opinion, not anything more. Whether or not you peronally like Sokolov and dislike Glantz and Overmans is irrelevant. Glantz and Overmans are recognised on Wikipedia as reliable sources, Sokolov is not. This talk page is not a forum for you to be trying to push your favourite sources. Nor is it a place to be carrying out original research and quoting primary sources that are known to be woefully incomplete as they only add up to a small fraction of the total losses. D2306 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a third opinion: Glantz is a recognized expert in the academic world, not just here on Wikipedia. Which is to say, the people who are qualified to decide whether he is an expert (read: not you) have determined that his research is excellent. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a third opinion. Yura2404, please read WP:SOURCES about which sources we are expected to use. Glantz etc, writing scholarly books, are our second-tier sources behind peer-reviewed journal articles. Once you've read that, come back and argue based on that policy here. If you wish to amend WP guidelines on sources, argue at WT:SOURCES, not here. Please do not amend the article again before you've accepted the WP guidelines that we all work by. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Glantz is certainly a reliable source, but especially in his older books he did not do much research into the German side and focused mainly on the Soviets. This was especially true when it comes to numbers. For example he used to cite Soviet contemporary reports for German strenghts/casualties and so on. I dont know whats the case in his Leningrad book, so the editor using this as source should maybe look up where Glantz actually got this number from, if there are some validity concerns. StoneProphet (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is from a recent book by Glantz. In it, he states that while the Soviet claims of 19000 Germans killed and 1000 captured are exaggerated, the germans did lose 12000 men killed "losses they could ill afford". No clear attribution though. I am perfectly happy to replace if a better reliable source is available.D2306 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)