Talk:Silesian offensives

survived

Should any article that has to "survive" an AfD really belong in a reference work?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Rather than a slow edit war, adding/deleting tags, why aren't the references from the sub-articles simply copied over to provide citations for relevant bits of text here? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's called synthesis, isn't it? How easy would it be to write articles if all one has to do is find two that have something in common and then just copy bits over?

Consider this

• David M. Glantz, The Soviet‐German War 1941–45: Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay

Two mentions of the two operations, by title only

• Duffy, C. Red Storm on the Reich: The Soviet March on Germany, 1945, Routledge, 1991,

Repeats two dozen times that the objective of the one was Upper Silesian Industrial Region, while the other was just a way to move west while avoiding Breslau

• Beevor, A. Berlin: The Downfall 1945 Penguin Books, 2002,

p.11 Front commander used "substantial part of his forces to take the Silesian industrial region" but operations not mentioned in the chronology

So, two sources, with one completely irrelevant, one that explicitly states they were not in any way combined, if anything pointing out that the Breslau position necessitated a split of the Front, and another which confirms this in a single sentence...good editing--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. No, it's not synthesis as that would involve advancing an entirely new hypothesis. In this case, the article refers to two operations which were mounted proximately in time and place.
2. I disagree with you about Beevor. I have this and, prompted by your comment, have just been looking at it. He makes numerous references to the Silesian operations, throughout the book, including a great deal of stomach-churning detail at about pp 120-130 (assuming the pagination in your edition and mine coincide). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so why don't you add some citations to support the contents of this article?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but I have limited time and other priorities :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have Beevor's book too, and indeed used it in creating the article Upper Silesian Offensive Operation. Beevor indeed makes reference to the actions in Silesia, but only in a sense such as (and I'm quoting from memory here) "the fighting in Silesia was merciless, with both sides imposing a brutal battle discipline on their own men". Beevor's main point is to illustrate the fact that Schoerner and Konev were both notoriously hard-headed commanders who had little regard for their men's lives, and that the fighting was intensified by the desperation of the german forces. He's not making any kind of thesis that there were two 'Silesian Offensives' which are linked in some especially meaningful way - beyond that which can be indicated on here by the articles for each separate operation.

The only English source to talk about the tactical objectives and chronology properly is Duffy. He is quite clear in Red Storm on the Reich (you can look at his book via Google Books, if you don't have it) that there are two different operations with rather different objectives - one to take the Silesian factories and mines intact, and the other, rather later, to consolidate gains on this axis and to protect / secure the left flank of the main advance on Berlin, which (after the Operation Gemse counter-attacks deailed in Upper Silesian Offensive Operation) was looking vulnerable.

Basically there's no real need for an article which directs the reader to the two separate offensives, especially as the 'Silesian Offensives', as a concept, do not exist in the literature. The only reason I kept the article in the first place, when researching and writing the pieces on the offensives themselves, was because I knew how much resistance there can be on Wikipedia to deleting anything, even if the concept is blatantly OR.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and Soviet sources are even more blunt. There is far more information on the fighting for the industrial region than the sidestep by Konev in avoiding the Festung Breslau. I even remember Konev saying something to this effect in one of his books. Anyone who understands the geography and objectives of the operations would never suggest calling them Silesian. Still, in my "quixotic" way I shall consider this article from the perspective of the Second Book, rather than the First--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Focus

Perhaps there was some misunderstanding. I am not insisting on the name (Silesian Offensives). The purpose of this article is not to create some artificial name for the Lower and Upper Silesian Offensives; it is to describe the history of Silesia during early 1945, when it was taken by Soviets from the Germans. Thus the scope of the article is actually slightly larger than than the two mentioned operations; since it also includes the end of the Sandomierz-Silesian Offensive Operation and the Moravian-Ostrava Offensive Operation. In other words, this article should not be seen as part of the canon series of the Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II‎, but as part of the History of Silesia sub article series, gathering info about all of the 1945 combat taking place in Silesia in one place. PS. As for references: it is obvious that any refs describing the smaller offensives are relevant to this article. And there are many publications on the history of Silesia, including those dedicated to early 1945, so the subject is not ORish and is certainly notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you have something of that sort planned for this article, would something along the lines of History of Silesia during World War II or History of Silesia in 1945 be a more appropriate title, in that case?Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say, listify! I can think of at least a dozen Silesian offensives in the last two centuries. After all, other things happened in Silesia even in 1945 aside from the Soviet offensives! If writing about history of Silesia, it would be an article from the inhabitants' perspective, so Defence of Silesia during World War II would seem far more appropriate, particularly since there was such a German plan--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)