Misplaced Pages

Talk:Second Jassy–Kishinev offensive: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:55, 3 January 2008 editTurgidson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,493 edits →Requested Move: again per WP:NCGN, plus history← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:38, 15 January 2025 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,250 editsm Signing comment by 169.253.162.4 - "" 
(714 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{move|Iassy-Kishinev Operation}}
{{WikiProject Germany|class=B|importance=}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Romania|importance=mid}}
{{WPMILHIST
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Mid}}
|class=B
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|B1=n|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|German=yes|WWII=yes|Romanian=yes}}
|portal=
}}
|attention=
{{Broken anchors|links=
|peer-review=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Reformation – Battles in the East) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Reformation – Battles in the East","appear":{"revid":332424492,"parentid":331971620,"timestamp":"2009-12-18T02:49:45Z","replaced_anchors":{"Order of Battle - August 1914, Lorraine":"Order of Battle – August 1914, Lorraine","Reformation - Battles in the East":"Reformation – Battles in the East"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":707414540,"parentid":707414045,"timestamp":"2016-02-28T19:12:23Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"Reformation"} -->
|old-peer-review=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|German-task-force=yes
|WWII-task-force=yes
|Romanian-task-force=yes
}} }}


== Decisive victory ==
{{WPRA}}


] This battle completely and iredeemably condemned Germany. The German Wiki says it was a decisive victory, the Russian Wiki says it was a decisive victory, who are you to say the otherwise?
Okay, as requested by me on the ], I have started this article. I will get back to it and add to it over the coming weeks. Everybody else feel free to chip in. ] 13:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 19:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
==Soviet Commander==
Tolbukhin and Malinovsky commanded the Fronts, but Timoshenko was the STAVKA representative, is that not correct? ] 18:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm no-one, but from what I got it doesn't matter who I am or who you are, just what the sources say, and I'm not seeing a source saying this on the article. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Casualties==
Please, don't tell me you're saying Soviets lost only 13,000 KIA, while Germany and Romania would have lost 430,000 KIA as the template says. Yes, Romania's troops were quite bad, but Soviet having less casualties is rare. This much less? Impossible. Yeah the article says this also, but how was this possible then? Sources? --] (]) 00:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


When the participants, the very participants and their Wikis say it, what more of a source you need? I know you're just nit-picking now. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


So something should be true cause you say it's true, interesting. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Actually the casualties are low the German ones that is by at least 50% and take notice that only dead and captured are listed not wounded if you add wounded you get +75% of 1.5 of the numbers listed. In 1944 the Soviet war machine was winning everywhere and hard too. 1944 is not 1941, in 1944 the Germans on all fronts lost 2 million men and that is just the Germans. It is possible if you look at what was actually happening in the war by then and Soviets have less casualties is not rare in 1994 but the rule only a few battle, small ones did they get more casualties and everyone of those has an article 50 pages long but the overall picture was highly favorable for the Soviets in 1944 and even more is in 1945. No one in the German cam wanted to write about what happened in 43 let alone 44 and 45 because those stories where neither memorable or glorious like the battles of 41 42 so most books of that time either apologize for the crimes that the Nazis’ did or blame everything on Hitler. The sources which are plain to see for anyone are at the bottom of the page] 14:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


It's not me saying it, it's the Germans and Russians. They were the participants, as I see myself needed to repeat. As such, they know the best. Simple. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==The timeline of events==
: ]. As such you will need to provide a reference for this assertion if you wish it to be included. ] (]) 23:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The timeline is very unclear: under '''A failure of Intelligence''' is written that 21 August was the day before the attack, therefore attack began on 22 August, but under '''Progress of the battle - General''' is written that ''the break-in in 6th Army sector destroyed rear-area supply installations by the evening of the 21st''. I guess later is wrong. In fact I have information that all action commenced on 23rd of August 1944. MC --] 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:This Romanian and this (official) Russian sources both name the 20th of August as the day of attack. --] 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


== Dumitrescu ==
OK then, so the author should correct the article ] 10:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


No complaint here, actually this is one of the things I actually like in this article! He was commander of a joint German-Romanian army group, which means that the German 6th Army, yes, that 6th Army, the main Axis Army at Stalingrad, was under his (at least nominal) command! And to think that most Western "historians" consider the 6th Army at Stalingrad so important that they feel free to completely ignore the Romanian 3rd Army. Now, it's the Romanian Third Army overshadowing the German 6th Army, as both are part of a formation under a Romanian General! Such delightful irony! >:3
==Rename to ]==
Also, it was about time to see Germans under Romanian command, I kinda had enough of seeing Romanian formations subordinated to the Germans...I mean come on, give me a break, they were not really that superior... --'
I propose renaming this article to ], per naming convention in . PS. Please note that the lead of the article even now states: ''The Battle of the Romania 1944 denotes combat operations usually referred to as 'Jassy–Kishinev Operation' (Russian: Ясско-Кишинёвская операция)''.... we should use the more common title. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
: Makes sense to me -- after all, this was an operation in WWII that involved only a limited area of eastern Romania, not by any means all of Romania. The capital, ], was liberated from ] by Romanian troops (with some air support from the ], as the Soviet troops were approaching from Moldavia) in the days following ] on ], ], in a separate military operation. As for the rest of Romania, it was not fully liberated until ], ], when the town of ] was retaken by the ], in a joint offensive with the Soviet Army, see '']''. Now, I do have a quibble, though: why Iassy-Kishinev Offensive, and not ]? After all, that's how both cities were known at the time the offensive was launched by the ] (not to say, that's how both ] and ] were known way back when, and that's how they are both known currently)... ] 19:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
: A few more sources:
* ], "Stalin's war with Germany", London: Phoenix Press, 2000. ISBN 1842124269
* Major Scott R. McMichael, "The Battle of Jassy-Kishinev", Military Review 65 (July 1985): 52-65.
: By the way, the ref list in the article could use some editing to bring it up to WP standards. ] 21:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Hmm, my source uses the English names - I'd suggest we look at Google Scholar and Print and see which ones are more prominent. Do the sources you quote use your spelling variants? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
::: Hmmm, I guess not. By the way, isn't Jassy the preferred English spelling of Iaşi? I get 1,010,000 Google hits for Jassy, and only 42,300 for Iassy (for comparison, Iaşi gives 27,700,000 hits!) While at it, Kishinev gives 661,000 hits, while Chişinău yields 7,040,000 hits. Finally, Iaşi+Chişinău= 1,350,000, Jassy+Kishinev=1,520, and Iassy+Kishinev=473. Not sure what (if anything) this proves, but it gives some rough indication of (current) usage. Will need to look more carefully at scholarly sources, though, I agree. — ] 22:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: For now I will abstain on specific spelling issue, I am sure there are experts on Romanian spellings here, while I'd be just an amateur.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I would support this move, as 'Battle of Romania' appears to be a wiki-invention. I would encourage Piotr to be bold and move the page if no disagreement arises here within, say, two weeks. ] 03:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::"Battle of Romania" is indeed a wiki-invention. Russians only had this offensive and then, or better said during it Romania capitulated, what battle? Not even Russians call it that way as far as I know... -- ] (]) 01:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::AFAIK, there was even a separate operation, the Romanian Operation, for the advancement of the Red Army beyond the Prut.--] (]) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I thought Iaşi is beyond Prut (Pruth in English I think), once the Romania capitulated Russians only mopped up the remaining Germans (with Romanian help by the way), it wasn't a "Battle of Romania" per se (not they called it this way, again that's as far as I know with my limited knowledge in this field -- I'll let other people more knowledgeable to discuss this...) -- ] (]) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry, I meant further advances of the Red army into Romania. I suppose the whole military action in the region (Romania+Germany vs Soviet Union and Romania+Soviet Union vs Germany) ''could'' be called "Battle of Romania", to give it an epic tone, but that's certainly not a Soviet designation. --] (]) 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 12:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Err, what's up with the renaming? The operation's name was translated into English from Russian, its most common name ''in English'' is "Iassy-Kishinev Operation" (also "Yassy-" or "Jassy-" latter probably from German) ,. --] (]) 00:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
: Well, er, perhaps it's because the respective cities are called ] and ]? I dunno, just a wild guess. ] (]) 01:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::Well, a name of an important historical event in a given locality is usually not updated with the current name of that locality. See ], for example. Besides, it's the most common name for the operation. --] (]) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::: That's different: the Kishinev pogrom took place when the city was part of the Russian Empire, and was officially called Kishinev. The Iaşi-Chişinău took place when both cities were part of Romania, and were officially called Iaşi and Chişinău, respectively. So I think this should be the deciding factor, perhaps even more than the fact that that's how they are called now. ] (]) 02:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::::The name that matters more is the current ''English'' name at the time. And those were "Jassy" and "Kishinev". This, however, is just an argument for the sake of an argument. All we need is to use the name used in English language literature. Compare:
::*, ;
::*
::*--] (]) 02:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::Also, the Romanian source I cited above uses "Iassy-Kishinev" in this context despite the text being an obvious translation from Romanian. (Not sure of its statistical credibility - could well be an amateur translation, but that site is used as a reference on Misplaced Pages...)
::Another good site I read once in a while also uses the "Jassy-Kishinev" form: (linked from this article) --] (]) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I kind of agree with Illythr in this case, also since it was a Russian operation, we might need to keep the translation from Russian to English... -- ] (]) 03:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually, a translation into contemporary English would probably be "Iasi-Chisinau...". In this case, however, there's an established name for it, so there's no need to invent/retranslate anything. --] (]) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
: I'm not sure about that googling—it depends on what one looks for. An instant search for the right keywords shows that in ], at least, they call it . ] (]) 05:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
: I put that link in the article, and added two more sources who call it "Operaţiunea Iaşi-Chişinău"—one is from ], the other from ]. What else do we need to establish current usage of the terminology? It's certainly the case in Romania and Moldova, but it's also sanctioned by the Beeb. That, added to the fact that (1) the two cities are called this way today (and at WP, too, of course), and (2) the two cities were called that way in August 1944, when the offensive occurred—sounds like solid evidence to me. ] (]) 07:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


== Failure of German intelligence ==
:I think I changed my opinion, let me explain, if the cities are now called in English Misplaced Pages "Iasi" and "Chisinau" then it's irrelevant that they were translated at some point from Russian in a different form, Kishinev is Russian for Chisinau, it's not the name of a different city, therefore there's no need to use an old translation, we simply need to use the current one (also as mentioned by Turgidson that was the name of the cities at that time too) -- ] (]) 07:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::Err, Turgidson, how a ''Soviet'' military operation is called ''in Romanian'' is pretty much irrelevant for an ''English language'' encyclopedia, wouldn't you agree? Likewise, for the Kishinev pogrom, "Chisinau" was the city's name ''in Romanian'' all this time, however, it was more known in the West as "Kishinev", not because of any "officialness", but because people who were referring to it were (or picked it up from) Russian speakers.
::Yet again, there is nothing to argue here. I have clearly shown the current usage of the term in the English literature. A 41+27 hits against zero in Google Books settles the issue without any possible second thoughts. --] (]) 10:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::: (1) You said at some point that even Romanian sources call it Iassy-Kishinev, and that we would be inventing/translating things otherwise; can we at least agree I shot down those notions? (2) How that ''Soviet'' operation is called ''in Russian'' is pretty much irrelevant for an ''English language'' encyclopedia, wouldn't you agree? (And while at it, wouldn't you agree that the Soviet Union is no more, whereas Romania and Moldova are alive and kicking? Just a thought...) (3) Please review ]: there are some very precise conventions here at WP on how to call cities, and the fact that it's Iaşi and Chişinău (diacritics and all, please note) means that the editors who decided how those cities are to be called at WP thought long and hard, and came to the conclusion that that's the way that best conforms to the WP naming conventions. If you want to challenge the consensus, why don't you try redirecting ] to ] or ], and/on ] to ], and see how that goes? (Note that Iassy is so unusual a spelling, that it doesn't even merit a redirect!) — ] (]) 13:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::::(1) Nope, I presented an ''English language'' Romanian source. You - a ''Romanian language'' one. In order to see how the operation is named in a language ''other than English'', you need but to click the various interwiki links provided in the article. Still, that doesn't really matter, as it's more indicative of a translator's skill (or preference?) rather than actual common English language usage (That particular site seems to use many combinations of the name at once).(2) The ''original'' name of any event or object in ''its native language'' is quite relevant in any encyclopedia (And while we're at it, we better stay on topic and not stray into offshoot discussions). (3) Erm, were discussing the established name of the operation, not the current names of the cities. Anyhow, the convention says to use the most common name. A 41 to 0 relation in English language books (per Google Books) clearly demonstrates which one's more common. A standard Google search indicates that the "Iassy-Kishinev Operation" is the most common name on the Internet in general (888 against 8 hits for the current name), but I'd rather stick to books. --] (]) 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Now that you've mentioned it, I'll go ahead and create that Iassy redirect if only for the sake of the 11200 enGoogle hits for it. --] (]) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


You see? We told them! We freaking told them! Over and over, yet the ignored us! I really had enough of people calling us traitors, in fact I have only one questions for those people: Would you stick by an ally that never listens no you, not even when you are clearly right, and that always wants to control you? Would you?
Just to make things clear: I intend to change the article name to "'''Jassy-Kishinev Operation'''" as the established English name for the operation. The current name ("Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive") is a new construct for which I was unable to find any support whatsoever in English sources . In fact, it looks like Misplaced Pages is the only English language resource that uses this form - a clear breach of ]. --] (]) 17:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
: Look, why do you try to impose your solution, instead of seeking to reach consensus? Clearly, there are a variety of policies involved here, and a variety of interpretations, all in good faith. Just as an indication, look above at the original naming discussion, initiated by Piotrus, to see that various editors have grappled with this for a while. I myself am at wit's end, I don't know what else to say to make my case -- I'd rather improve the article (like I've been doing for a while) than keep talking about this (by the way, and for the record, it was not I who moved the page to this name, or the previous one; in fact, I very seldom move pages). But others may want to chime in. Instead of starting with moves and countermoves, how about we have a (somewhat informal) RfC on this very page, and see whether a wider consensus can be reached? ] (]) 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::I do not intend to make the move immediately (wait a few days) and would welcome any informed input in the meantime. However, right now the situation looks quite clear: There is a common English name for the operation and it is not the name of this article. I am surprised to see such resistance from your side to something so trivial. There is no POV here, no controversy, nothing but a good faith error by a fellow contributor. I do not see a need for an RfC for something that obvious and would consider it a waste of time much better spent at working on the article itself. Still, if you think that an RfC would be best (I take it, you do not accept my arguments for some reason) - go right ahead. --] (]) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 11:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Apropo improving: Why did you add the name of the operation in Romanian? I have seen no German or Soviet operation names given in languages other than English and native regardless of where those operations took place (i.e no "Операция Барбаросса" ], no "Bataille de Normandie" ], or, say, the name of the ] in ] in that article etc). --] (]) 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
: That's to (1) clarify the (current) title; (2) the battle occurred on what was at the time Romanian territory, and now is part of either Romania or Moldova (Barbarossa is not the Russian name of a locality, and Normandie is almost the same as Normandy ); (3) all three exterior links that I put in (there are no others at the moment) speak of "Operaţiunea Iaşi–Chişinău". Thus, I figured it's better to explain what's that all about, instead of leaving the putative reader wondering. As for the RfC, you may note that I did not propose something formal, but rather, something informal, on this page. For example, I remember a rather informative, consensus-building discussion some of us had at ]. I don't know whether there is enough energy for that here, but that's a thought. ] (]) 20:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::(1) The current title is incorrect. Unlike that Odorheiu Secuiesc dispute, there actually is an established English name for the operation. (2) No Chinese or Japanese name ] as well... Point is, operations only have English and native language names in their respective articles. I do not see why this one should suddenly become an exception. (3) All three exterior links that you put in are in Romanian; obviously, they use the Romanian name and would much better look in the Romanian Misplaced Pages anyway (oh, I see you already put them in there, good job). The reader will be best served simply by correcting the name of the operation. --] (]) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


== Aftermath of the Operation== == External links modified ==
Now that you mention it, I looked more carefully at one of those articles, namely, the one from the ]. There is more to it than that bit about the naming issue. It says that, according to ''Asociaţia Istoricilor din Republica Moldova'' and ''Asociaţia victimelor regimului comunist de ocupaţie şi Veteranilor de Război ai Armatei Romane'',
:Operaţiunea Iaşi-Chişinău a fost o re-anexare a Basarabiei şi Bucovinei de Nord la Rusia Sovietică. Preşedintele Asociaţiei Istoricilor, Anatol Petrencu, a declarat la conferinţă că "ruşii au continuat să omoare şi să captureze militari romani chiar şi după 23 august 1944, zi în care Armata Română, la ordinul ], a încetat să tragă în trupele sovietice." Uniunea Sovietică, potrivit istoricului Anatol Petrencu, a deportat peste 170.000 de ostaşi ai Armatei Române, 40.000 dintre aceştia fiind închişi în lagărul de filtrare din oraşul ], unde au murit de foame, frig, boli sau au fost executaţi."
Come to think of it, this is relevant information, and puts the Operation in a broader historical context. I'll take to heart your prod, and add the info to the article in a short while (translated into English, of course), so as to put a more complete picture into it. ] (]) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not sure that such an organisation is any more neutral on this matter as, say, the Soviet War Encyclopedia. Still, with proper attribution, it's fine. Although the wording is kind of strange - were they expelled or were they detained in the POW camp until all 40.000 died there? This is kind of contradictory... --] (]) 23:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:: Are you questioning the reliability of ''Asociaţia Istoricilor din Republica Moldova'' (The Association of Historians from the Republic of Modova), or that of its President, Anatol Petrencu? As I mentioned before (I think), the Soviet Union is no more with us (thanks for the small mercies!), whereas that association, that country, that person are alive and kicking. So let's be careful when impugning people's credibility or motives. I say that, based on WP policies, the president of a country's historians' association, being interviewed on the ], must be viewed as someone respectable, not pejoratively put down at the propaganda level of the ]. ] (]) 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I am referring to ''Asociaţia victimelor regimului comunist de ocupaţie şi Veteranilor de Război ai Armatei Romane'' (Association of victims of the Communist occupation regime and war veterans of the Romanian army). --] (]) 16:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
==Requested Move==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228130816/http://www.centru-studii-nato.ro/pdf/strat_iss_no5.pdf to http://www.centru-studii-nato.ro/pdf/strat_iss_no5.pdf
This article should be moved to Iassy-Kishinev Operation, as per standard practice among English speaking historians (eg, Keith E. Bonn/David Glantz, Slaughterhouse, p.48). I have never seen it referred to as the Iasu-Chisinau Operation. As per the procedures at ], this title is being established so that discussion can be conducted under it. ] (]) 06:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:Additional reasons given by ] for the move at Kirill's talk page, repeated below, are:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1. This is an English version, and no English source I know of uses Romanian names for the operation.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121111034834/http://www.weltkrieg.ru/battles/123-------1944-.html to http://www.weltkrieg.ru/battles/123-------1944-.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728054537/http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/53-1-49.shtml to http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/53-1-49.shtml

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 00:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

== Requested move 10 January 2021 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top (modified) -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
----

<span id="reqmovetag"></span>{{check talk wp}}
{{Tmbox
|small =
|imageright =
|type = move
|text = '''It was proposed in this section that ] be ]&#32;to {{no redirect|Jassy–Kishinev Offensive}}.'''
----
<small>'''{{smallcaps|result:}}'''</small><br />''']''' See no agreement below to alter the existing conditions at the present time. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few weeks to garner consensus for this rename. It is suggested that any future move request contain consideration/disposition for the article now called the '''First Jassy–Kishinev Offensive''', because it makes no sense to have an article so-named along with another article just called '''Jassy–Kishinev Offensive'''. ] to editors for your input, and ]''!'' <small>(]&nbsp;by&nbsp;])</small><!-- This is User template ]. --> ''''']'''''&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>08:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)</small>
----
<div class="floatleft">''Links:'' • </div>
<div class="floatright">{{resize|65%|''This is template {{tls|Requested move/end}}''}}</div>
<!-- This is template "subst:Requested move/end". -->
}}


] → {{no redirect|Jassy–Kishinev Offensive}} – ]. The existence of a “first Jassy-Kishinev Offensive” is a novel theory, the term has been consistently used since 1944 to refer to the events in August 1944.&nbsp;] (]) 12:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
2. The operation was a Soviet one, planned and conducted in Russian.
:<small>This is a contested technical request (]). ] (]) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)</small>
*{{ping|Anonimu|70.31.205.108}} queried move request ] (]) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
** '''Comment''' are you saying that the ] is a hoax? Shouldn't you nominated the article for deletion first then? -- ] (]) 15:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
*** Not a hoax per se, but a theory that attempts to connect several events proposed by an academic with proper qualifications. Considering the lack of other academics adopting or confirming this view, probably the article should be the book, not about the posited offensive. The title itself however is a wikipedian invention (that seeped into some recent fiction books, as can be seen in a Google Books search).] (]) 16:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


*You need to propose a descriptive title for the first offensive, otherwise it's just awkward. But Glantz's work has received positive reviews and plenty of citations. At least one work ({{jstor|26571082}}) uses the "First Iasi-Kishinev Offensive" terminology. It isn't a novel "theory" so much as new research. I see no problem with that article. ] (]) 03:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
3. The convention on Wiki is that only the Operation code names be retained in their original language. The name here is an operational one, and not the code name of an Operation.
**Irrespective of whether the battles discussed by Glantz constituted an offensive operation, the fact is that 99% of academic sources used the term “Jassy-Kishinev Offensive” to refer to the battles in August 1944, thus the term “second Jassy-Kishinev Offensive” is a Misplaced Pages invention that is propagating through the web by mirroring and sloppy research. Matter of fact, the term “first Jassy-Kishinev offensive” is used in Glantz’s book only in the preface, thus never by Glantz (making our article about Glantz’s theory unfactual). The best solution seems to me to convert the article regarding Glantz’s theory into an article about Glantz’s book, using the name he chose, i.e. ], and returning this article to the well-established term, per ].] (]) 08:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


*There were two offensives into Romania in the spring and summer of 1944. Most sources regarding the so called "first offensive" are in Romanian and German archives, which Glantz cites. If Misplaced Pages is to remain a neutral space objective of historical occurances, it is necessary to have a distinction between both offensives, regardless of how "unimportant" the first offensive may seem. New historical work and research regularly uncovers offensives and operations will use different nomenclature. The reason why "99% of academic sources use the term "Jassy-Kishinev Offensive" to refer to battles in August 1944" is because the battles of the first offensive were unheard of to most at the time of their publishing. The article should not be about Glantz's book since there are more sources which discuss the battles of May - June 1944, confirming it is more than just a theory. ] (]) 03:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
4. The name of the operation does not refer to the cities as such, but uses them as a general geographic reference for the area in which it took place, unlike for example the Siege of Tobruk.
** I fully agree, these are two separate military actions, with two very different outcomes, and thus should be treated separately. ] (]) 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
**Please note Mihai Mihai1 is a ].] (]) 07:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
** I am not. This is my first edit. ] (]) 15:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Lean oppose''' This proposal sacrifices ] without gaining enough in return. When I searched Google scholar for {{tq|Jassy–Kishinev offensive}} one of the first results was a non-Glantz source stating "On April 5, 1944, the Third and Fourth Ukrainian Fronts launched the First Jassy-Kishinev Operation in northeastern Romania." (] &#183; ]) ''']''' 17:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
**Thanks for the pointer; I added a reference to Richard C. Hall's book at ]. ] (]) 19:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
**Do note that the source you mentioned calls it the "First Jassy-Kishinev '''Operation'''", the only source in Google Books doing so as far as I could ascertain.] (]) 07:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
----
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>


== Jassy or Iasi? ==
5. I would agree that some of the article titles for some of the operations in Misplaced Pages are inapropriate. For example the Battle of Stalingrad describes neither the who, the when, the where, or the why of the entire 'battle'. In fact it describes three different operations, seen from at least four different perspectives, of which only one can be called a Battle of Stalingrad, and that is the actual tactical fighting IN the city. On the other hand little would be gained by renaming into German (or Polish) the Vistula-Oder Operation since the English versions of the rivers are very similar, and the operations were essentially about the breaching of the river-based defensive lines by the Red Army. In any case, I'll be working on the Eastern Front operations, so hope to enlist your able support in future improvements :o)


The name/spelling "Jassy" was popularized by historical German sources and subsequently used in older English texts. However, the Romanian spelling is "Iasi," and that has been the accepted spelling for many decades in all non-Romanian sources. The name "Jassy" is now obsolete. Few people outside of historians or those with an historical interest in the region would even know what city the word "Jassy" referred to, whereas "Iasi" is well known throughout Europe. Should we not change the offensive's name and references to the city to "Iasi," per Misplaced Pages policy of prioritizing the naming of cities with the current, accepted form in the native language vice obsolete forms? It could be noted that historical sources in English used the name "Jassy." But it's always been "Iasi" in Romanian, and this was the actual name of the city in 1944 when the offensive occurred. The Misplaced Pages entry about the city is "Iasi," as are almost all other Misplaced Pages entries referencing the city except for articles focused on the First and Second World War events, where the sources drawn on are invariably English or German, hence "Jassy."
6. Finally there is a wider practice in the discipline of History to use contemporary names where known. That is the point of History. If for example Yassy is renamed city No.r345-6 300 years from now to comply to a new EU standard, the historians will not refer to it post-factum as such ;o) ] (]) 07:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


The same could be said for "Chisinau" vice "Kishinev," although Kishinev is still used in some English, German, and other contemporary sources; it hasn't become completely obsolete as "Jassy" has, although it is rapidly being replaced.
: First, it's not "Iasu-Chisinau", but rather, ]-] (with diacritics and all). Second, that's how both cities were officially called at the time when the Soviet Offensive took place (August 1944). Third, that's how both cities are officially called as of now (January 2008). And fourth, if you were to read the discussion above, you'll see we've been going around the bend with this one for a while (well, not on the same scale as the epic ] vs ] debate, but still), and the consensus among a majority of editors has coalesced around Iaşi-Chişinău — though a significant minority prefers some other variations on the names of those cities, that's true. I appreciate your input, and I'm ready to discuss this issue more, if needed. But perhaps it would be more productive to add content to the article? ] (]) 07:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::Er, where did you manage to spot a majority of editors? Besides, it's not a question of majority, but a simple matter of being correct or incorrect. As I demonstrated above (and Buckshot06 expanded later), the current name is simply false (no scholarly references). I waited over two weeks for any kind of informed input, but none was provided. So I see no reason not to rename the article to its proper English name. --] (]) 11:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::: Majority means more than 50%; should we have a count? And, er, could you please define for me what "proper English name" means in this context? Sorry, I just don't dig it. Please consult ]. -- ] (]) 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the proposed move. Check out ] for ample confirmation of the proposed title (and ''cf''. ], ]). — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


So how about renaming this and it's sister article on the first offensive, the "Iasi-Chisinau" offensive per the original Romanian, while still noting the historical usage of the older names? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Oppose''' I would share opinions with Turgidson, and articles mentioned above should be moved to the oficial name of the cities. --] (]) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ], which Eurocopter ignores. We should use the name now used for those cities ''as of 1944''. ] <small>]</small> 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''This is not a vote''': The current name scores zero in Google Books (English) search (see above), demonstrating that it is a clear case of ]. "Jassy-Kishinev Operation", on the other hand scores 47 (Yassy and Iassy variations get a few dozen more). This leaves no place for conjectures or opinions over which one to use. --] (]) 20:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ], which ] ignores. We should use the name now used for those cities ''as of August 1944'', when the event occurred. Please consult history books on that, or the relevant WP articles. -- ] (]) 20:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:38, 15 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Jassy–Kishinev offensive article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconGermany Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRomania Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconSoviet Union Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Balkan / European / German / World War II
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
German military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

  • ] The anchor (#Reformation – Battles in the East) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Decisive victory

User:Laidita This battle completely and iredeemably condemned Germany. The German Wiki says it was a decisive victory, the Russian Wiki says it was a decisive victory, who are you to say the otherwise?

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm no-one, but from what I got it doesn't matter who I am or who you are, just what the sources say, and I'm not seeing a source saying this on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laidita (talk • contribs) 20:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

When the participants, the very participants and their Wikis say it, what more of a source you need? I know you're just nit-picking now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanian-and-proud (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

So something should be true cause you say it's true, interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laidita (talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not me saying it, it's the Germans and Russians. They were the participants, as I see myself needed to repeat. As such, they know the best. Simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanian-and-proud (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. As such you will need to provide a reference for this assertion if you wish it to be included. Anotherclown (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Dumitrescu

No complaint here, actually this is one of the things I actually like in this article! He was commander of a joint German-Romanian army group, which means that the German 6th Army, yes, that 6th Army, the main Axis Army at Stalingrad, was under his (at least nominal) command! And to think that most Western "historians" consider the 6th Army at Stalingrad so important that they feel free to completely ignore the Romanian 3rd Army. Now, it's the Romanian Third Army overshadowing the German 6th Army, as both are part of a formation under a Romanian General! Such delightful irony! >:3 Also, it was about time to see Germans under Romanian command, I kinda had enough of seeing Romanian formations subordinated to the Germans...I mean come on, give me a break, they were not really that superior... --'

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Failure of German intelligence

You see? We told them! We freaking told them! Over and over, yet the ignored us! I really had enough of people calling us traitors, in fact I have only one questions for those people: Would you stick by an ally that never listens no you, not even when you are clearly right, and that always wants to control you? Would you?

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jassy–Kishinev Offensive. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jassy–Kishinev Offensive. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Second Jassy–Kishinev Offensive be renamed and moved to Jassy–Kishinev Offensive.

result:
No consensus. See no agreement below to alter the existing conditions at the present time. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few weeks to garner consensus for this rename. It is suggested that any future move request contain consideration/disposition for the article now called the First Jassy–Kishinev Offensive, because it makes no sense to have an article so-named along with another article just called Jassy–Kishinev Offensive. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth  ed.  08:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Links: current log • target log This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Second Jassy–Kishinev Offensive → Jassy–Kishinev Offensive – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The existence of a “first Jassy-Kishinev Offensive” is a novel theory, the term has been consistently used since 1944 to refer to the events in August 1944. Anonimu (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You need to propose a descriptive title for the first offensive, otherwise it's just awkward. But Glantz's work has received positive reviews and plenty of citations. At least one work (JSTOR 26571082) uses the "First Iasi-Kishinev Offensive" terminology. It isn't a novel "theory" so much as new research. I see no problem with that article. Srnec (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Irrespective of whether the battles discussed by Glantz constituted an offensive operation, the fact is that 99% of academic sources used the term “Jassy-Kishinev Offensive” to refer to the battles in August 1944, thus the term “second Jassy-Kishinev Offensive” is a Misplaced Pages invention that is propagating through the web by mirroring and sloppy research. Matter of fact, the term “first Jassy-Kishinev offensive” is used in Glantz’s book only in the preface, thus never by Glantz (making our article about Glantz’s theory unfactual). The best solution seems to me to convert the article regarding Glantz’s theory into an article about Glantz’s book, using the name he chose, i.e. Red Storm over the Balkans, and returning this article to the well-established term, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.Anonimu (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There were two offensives into Romania in the spring and summer of 1944. Most sources regarding the so called "first offensive" are in Romanian and German archives, which Glantz cites. If Misplaced Pages is to remain a neutral space objective of historical occurances, it is necessary to have a distinction between both offensives, regardless of how "unimportant" the first offensive may seem. New historical work and research regularly uncovers offensives and operations will use different nomenclature. The reason why "99% of academic sources use the term "Jassy-Kishinev Offensive" to refer to battles in August 1944" is because the battles of the first offensive were unheard of to most at the time of their publishing. The article should not be about Glantz's book since there are more sources which discuss the battles of May - June 1944, confirming it is more than just a theory. Mihai mihai1 (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Lean oppose This proposal sacrifices WP:PRECISE without gaining enough in return. When I searched Google scholar for Jassy–Kishinev offensive one of the first results was a non-Glantz source stating "On April 5, 1944, the Third and Fourth Ukrainian Fronts launched the First Jassy-Kishinev Operation in northeastern Romania." (t · c) buidhe 17:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jassy or Iasi?

The name/spelling "Jassy" was popularized by historical German sources and subsequently used in older English texts. However, the Romanian spelling is "Iasi," and that has been the accepted spelling for many decades in all non-Romanian sources. The name "Jassy" is now obsolete. Few people outside of historians or those with an historical interest in the region would even know what city the word "Jassy" referred to, whereas "Iasi" is well known throughout Europe. Should we not change the offensive's name and references to the city to "Iasi," per Misplaced Pages policy of prioritizing the naming of cities with the current, accepted form in the native language vice obsolete forms? It could be noted that historical sources in English used the name "Jassy." But it's always been "Iasi" in Romanian, and this was the actual name of the city in 1944 when the offensive occurred. The Misplaced Pages entry about the city is "Iasi," as are almost all other Misplaced Pages entries referencing the city except for articles focused on the First and Second World War events, where the sources drawn on are invariably English or German, hence "Jassy."

The same could be said for "Chisinau" vice "Kishinev," although Kishinev is still used in some English, German, and other contemporary sources; it hasn't become completely obsolete as "Jassy" has, although it is rapidly being replaced.

So how about renaming this and it's sister article on the first offensive, the "Iasi-Chisinau" offensive per the original Romanian, while still noting the historical usage of the older names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.162.4 (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: