Talk:First Jassy–Kishinev offensive
(Redirected from Talk:First Jassy–Kishinev Offensive)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Historian932 in topic Why did they self-censor?
 | A fact from First Jassy–Kishinev offensive appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 March 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
Name edit
Not sure if this page should be moved to "Jassy–Kishinev Offensive (Spring 1944)", or "Jassy–Kishinev Offensive (April-June 1944)", or just left as it is now. Is there a consistent name Glantz uses in his book? --Illythr (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Glantz uses this name in pages XIII, 13, 371-371, 374-375, 378-379, in his book Red Storm Over the Balkans:The Failed Soviet Invasion of Romania, Spring 1944 (2007). --15:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hm, I guess we'll have to wait and see under which name it becomes accepted among historians. If the reference to them as "first" and "second" becomes as widespread as that of the battles of Kharkov, we can use those. For now, I suggest a date disambig here as well. --Illythr (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would oppose a date disambig because Glantz is currently the first one which describes widely and confirms the existence of this operation, and the current title is the designation he uses for it. Another book in which he uses this designation: Colossus Reborn: The Red Army At War, 1941-1943 (2005), p. 636. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, what's the official name of that operation? Why not use that? Equating the two battles just like that is the same as making Earth a disambig between the planet and the town in Texas - a severe breach of WP:UNDUE. --Illythr (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would oppose a date disambig because Glantz is currently the first one which describes widely and confirms the existence of this operation, and the current title is the designation he uses for it. Another book in which he uses this designation: Colossus Reborn: The Red Army At War, 1941-1943 (2005), p. 636. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hm, I guess we'll have to wait and see under which name it becomes accepted among historians. If the reference to them as "first" and "second" becomes as widespread as that of the battles of Kharkov, we can use those. For now, I suggest a date disambig here as well. --Illythr (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do we have any other reference about this battle except for Glantz? Maybe some other references for the numbers and losses. So far this seems suspicious.99.235.15.225 (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
Content? edit
Am I missing something? Right now, this article only covers the build-up of the operation, i.e. April. What happens next? Someone with access to the Glantz book could perhaps give us a hint? :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Why did they self-censor? edit
Does Glantz (or anyone else) say *why* the Soviets left out certain battles in their war effort? Was it because the major formations were Ukrainian? Historian932 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Historian932, because they wished to cover up failures. Glantz has placed texts on the web (named something like 'Forgotten Battles') in which he explains this. (signed) Buckshot06