Talk:Battle of the Seelow Heights

Suggestions for Amending the Casualties info?

These are the latest figures apparently taken from military field records. I did some adding from the scattered data.

1. Total losses of 1GTA, 47A, 61A, 69A, and 3SA 16-19 April: 3957 killed, 15590 wounded.

2. Losses of 33rd Army 15–20 April: 1,687 killed, 7,213 wounded, 128 missing, 13 non-battle, 206 diseased.[18]

3. Losses of 5th Shock Army 11–30 April: 3,628 killed, 13,702 wounded, 60 missing, 476 by other causes.[19]

4. Losses of 8th Gds Army 16–20 April: 12-13,000 total casualties.[20]

5. Losses of 2nd Gds Tank Army (only three Corps without army troops) 16–21 April: 265 killed, 1,530 wounded.[21]

Ok, the first problem we have with this data is the difference in timeframe. However, we can reasonably combine ones with similar categories first. Adding 1+2+5 (counting diseased as medical and non-battle/missing as deaths), then adding line 4.

Subtotal: 6050 dead, 24539 wounded + 12-13000 dead and wounded

The question is what to do with line 3, which obviously includes fighting beyond Seelow. However, we can still use these figures to get a reasonable estimate and upper range for casualties (note: past this point what I say will be constituted as OR, but I think it serves as a useful thought exercise regardless)

Let's divide the 13,000 into 3000 dead and 10000 wounded:
Subtotal 2: 9050 dead, 34539 wounded
And let's be generous and say that 1/2 of 5th shock army's casualties happened at Seelowe (1814 kia, 6851 wounded, 30 missing, 238 other).
This gives us a grand total of: 11132 dead, 41390 wounded, 52522 total casualties

To give a range, the number can be anywhere between 9000-13000 dead and 34000-48000 wounded, depending on how many of 8th GA's casualties you want to add in (the former figure is 0% and the latter is 100%).

Now why did I write this all? I think it's useful to think about this battle in terms of some hard numbers. It was nowhere near as bloody as some would claim, though it was very bloody in its own right. (The losses to the 33rd Army and 8th Guards Army would have constituted a 20-25% reduction of their original strength in just 5 days! This is catastrophic in typical military terms, where just a 10% loss of strength would disrupt a unit and severely impair its ability to conduct further operations without resupply and reorganization).

This lower estimate actually makes more sense, since the Battle of Berlin was more than just Seelow, the Halbe, and the Berlin assault. The battle was a massive mopping up operation against three-quarters of a million German troops, probably only a third of whom participated in those three key sub-battles.

But I think there needs to be some way of conveying these more up-to-date but more disjointed statistics in this article. Perhaps instead of having the number in the battle box, we can tell the reader to consult the appropriate section in the article? Megakedar (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Strength of the defenders

Info box says that there were 100,000 Germans. But introduction of the article mentions 200,000. Which number is correct? --79.132.160.123 (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

About 91,000 in 9th Army, I've adjusted accordingly and added a reference. Hohum (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

From Berlin

A lot of information for this article can be copied from the Battle of Berlin article. Philip Baird Shearer 20:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. Philip Baird Shearer 21:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Losses

The sources I know (for instance the German wikipedia page) say the Red Army lost 72.000. Stalin has been given a wrong number 33.000 first, because the right number was thought to upset him. '-129.247.247.238 13:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)'

The 70 000 killed is impossible, because in the entire Berlin operation the Soviets lost less than 80 000 men killed and missing. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all. Yes, you are right. The 70,000 is most reasonably an exaggeration, the previous number of 30,000 is more likely to be correct. But what is also false, is the 81,000 number of Soviet KIA for the whole strategic operation.

The Battle of Berlin covers the following battles:

- The Battle of Oder-Niesse, and the Battle of the Seelow Heights

- The Battle in Berlin, and

- The Battle at Halbe

It is known that the Red Army had appr. 20 000 KIA at Halbe and the most common estimations for the Battle of the Seelow Hights gives a numer of 30, 000 KIA. This leaves only 31, 000 KIA for both the other parts of the Battle of Oder-Niesse and the Battle in Berin, which is, by reason, out of question.

I do not think that the very incomplete tables showing Soviet losses add much to the reader. I think they are rather disturbing to the text section and I suggest they should be deleted or summarized. EriFr (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

79.136.63.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC).

Soviet losses of the 1st Belorussian Front 16-19 April

16 April

Army	1st Tank	2nd Tank	61st	47th	3rd Shock	5th Shock	8th Guard	69th	33rd
KIA	26	?	94	169	158	369	?	312	?
WIA	117	?	204	977	483	1298	?	1417	?

17 April

Army	1st Tank	2nd Tank	61st	47th	3rd Shock	5th Shock	8th Guard	69th	33rd
KIA	38	?	119	210	113	615	?	308	?
WIA	175	?	284	1251	417	2034	?	1276	?

18 April

Army	1st Tank	2nd Tank	61st	47th	3rd Shock	5th Shock	8th Guard	69th	33rd
KIA	90	?	95	156	119	?	?	88	?
WIA	355	?	365	625	416	?	?	297	?

19 April

Army	1st Tank	2nd Tank	61st	47th	3rd Shock	5th Shock	8th Guard	69th	33rd
KIA	135	?	86	287	166	?	?	204	?
WIA	678	?	363	1112	594	?	?	652	?

Losses of 33rd Army (15-20 April) - 1687 KIA, 7213 WIA, 128 MIA, 13 non-combat, 206 injured

Source - Aleksey Isaev 'Berlin 45th. Battles in the beast's camp' http://militera.lib.ru/h/isaev_av7/17.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel Kozlov (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

But who confirms that the number of 81.116 Soviet KIA and MIA for the whole operation is right? Of course, these are new numbers based on serious research, but Krivosheev has evaluated only the official military records. The actual numbers may well have been higher. Akribes (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How much closer to the "truth" one can get, other than by studying official military records? I am not too sure what you mean by "confirm", but for instance, David Glantz regarded the statistical study in question rather highly. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Talking about Soviet Union, official records may be well away from truth. There was a lot of number fudging to make Soviet victory more impressive and to downplay the casualities. --79.132.160.123 (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I will reproduce a quote from Paul Siebert from the Battle of Berlin discussion with some scholarly opinion on Krivosheev. There is little reason to doubt the Krivosheev, since most of the inaccuracy of the records came from not counting irregulars and those who were called up but captured/killed before they could be registered (happened a lot in 1941, but not at all in 1945). Megakedar (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert--Re: "You can not state that Krivosheev work is definitive unless an expert has published stating at it is." I believe, a publication in The Journal of Military History is sufficient. Walter Dunn (Walter S. Dunn. Reviewed work(s): Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century by G. F. Krivosheev Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 660-661) writes:

"The information in the tables is basic to any research on military actions by the Soviets. Although the tables have been created by the authors, the work is documented and one could check the original source material in the Russian archives. The question of reliability is significant. Reliability can be tested by comparing to other source material, by checking for internal consistency, and applying common sense from a wide variety of sources. Based on these three tests, the tables appear to be reliable, but, as so often in the past, imply one thing, when in truth some editorial work has been done."

"A check for internal consistency was made between Table 93 (p. 244) and Table 95 (p. 253). Table 93 states that 98,300 tanks and self-propelled guns were produced during the war, while Table 95 states that 109,100 tanks and self-propelled guns were received during the war. The difference (10,800) was most likely Lend-Lease; 14,430 tanks were sent to Russia during the war and significant numbers were lost in transit. More specifically, the figures for 1943 reflect a difference of 3,200, and Lend-Lease delivered 3,650 tanks in that year"

"Applying general knowledge, during the Battle of Kursk, Table 98 (p.262), Krivosheev states that 1,614 tanks were lost by the Voronezh and Steppe Fronts. Using a wide variety of sources, I have estimated that the Russians lost 1,000 tanks in the first nine days and a smaller number during the following three weeks. The reduction of tanks available to the two fronts from 5 July 1943 to 7 August 1943 was 854 (3,173 less 2,319). The Russians probably could have replaced or repaired the other 760 tanks, verifying Krivosheev's figure.

All of the above examples lend credence to the tables, but the user is alerted to test the numbers against other sources and to find answers for any discrepancies. The book is an indispensable reference for anyone seriously interested in the Russian military."

Another source (Michael Ellman and S. Maksudov. Soviet Deaths in the Great Patriotic War: A Note. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 4, Soviet and East European History (1994), pp. 671-680) discusses the overall Krivosheev's ("official", according to Ellman&Maksudov) numbers:

"It is important to note that this figure of 8.7 million only includes the regular armed forces and the frontier troops and internal troops of the NKVD. It does not include non-conscripted fighters (partisans, resistance fighters and the underground in territories occupied by the Germans). Nor does it include railwaymen fighting in their own militarised detachments, local anti-aircraft defence, the militarised fire service, police in frontier areas who fought against the invaders etc. Nor does it include deaths among the 500 000 conscripts called up at the beginning of the war but captured by the Germans before reaching their unit. It is an estimate of 'deaths of conscripts who reached their units' and not of 'deaths of all conscripts and fighters'.
How accurate is this 8.7 million figure? The book which analyses military losses and which is the basis for the figure itself draws attention to the limitations of the underlying data on which it is based. Checking it requires studying the archival material which it used and also the estimating methods it used in the absence of firm archival figures. In the absence of such work, it is reassuring to note that the new figures, based on military records, are quite close to the estimates based on the method of demographic estimation, and published by one of us long ago. On the other hand, there are some factors which make the 8.7 million figure too high as an estimate of deaths due to the war"

In other words, these two experts confirm that the numbers themselves (although not necessarily their interpretation) are reliable, and, if some other source uses the Krivosheev's numbers without doing additional archival research, it should be considered a tertiary source.

I do not think that the very incomplete tables showing Soviet losses add much to the reader. I think they are rather disturbing to the text section and I suggest they should be deleted or summarized. EriFr (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Buildup section

• The main east-west autobahn is crossing the river Oder at Frankfurt (Oder) around 10 miles south of Seelow. Pls check with Google Maps. But Seelow and Kustrin are part of the German town's which are connected with a federal highway now called Bundesstraße 1 (old name Reichsstrasse 1). This was the most important road between the autobahn Berlin - Stettin in the north and the autobahn Berlin - Frankfurt (Oder) in the south.
• In your source about a reservoir upstream you will need to confirm the location of this artificial lake upstream. Near Seelow was no artificial lake!? If flooded everybody would need a boot. The plain was during the spring time in 1945 just soaked because the snow melted and this was a former swamp region (Oderbruch). Please delete the reference of an artificial lake upstream --Tiem Borussia 73 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous

70,000 killed? In the entire Berlin Offensive 81,000 Soviets were killed, it is impossible that nearly all of these losses were sustained at Seelow Heights. 70,000 might be closer to total Soviet causalties in the battle(KIA,WIA,MIA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.186.81 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

COD5

Should it be mentioned this battle was portrayed in COD5? What were the types of weapons they used? Were they similar to the games? Kaiman1023 (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Battles/Monuments?

Should a section be added about what appears to be the monument dedicated to the battle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kriegerdenkmal-Seelower-Hoehe-k.jpg

--Elven6 (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Flag erasing

Why on this page and others are the german and soviet flags being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.31.167.125 (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Battles/Monuments ...Location?

As a reader not a contributor, I've had difficulty working out exactly where this was fought. Could we have a map showing the location of the Heights and the co-ordinates of the monument discussed below -assuming its on the battlefield.
JRPG (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Start class

I have downgraded this article to start class. Not all paragraphs are cited and the prose quality is lacking too. D2306 (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Soviet Casualties

To make it clear: I dont wanted to remove anything, but having only the casualties of 2 of the 9 participating armies in the infobox, makes them not comparable for the reader to the German ones, especially if the in-Article text gives a much larger overall figures for the Soviets (~60k total casualties for the whole operation with very scattered data). Thats why i put out. StoneProphet (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree, and also think that these incomplete tables showing Soviet losses in the text section are rather disturbing to the reader, they do not add much to the whole picture. I suggest they should be summarized. EriFr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

Problem is when you summarize numbers from tables....it apear that soviet casulties in this battle are acctualy modest ( around 11,000 KIA ). And we don't want that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.65.17 (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wut, you don't want soviet casualties to look modest even if they were, so it's ok to put Beevor's wild guesstimates? Talk about NPOV here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.152.26 (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Two armies (8th and 69th) and one tank army (1st) attacked the Seelow Heights. The other armies of the 1st Belorussian Front attacked elsewhere. -YMB29 (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Soviet casualties again and Konev

According to the widely accepted Soviet casualty figures, the 1st Belorussian Front lost 37,610 men killed or missing in the entire Berlin operation.[1][2]
So it cannot be that 30,000 or 33,000 of these were lost at the Battle of the Seelow Heights alone. That would mean that other battles during this operation, including in Berlin itself, were relatively bloodless...
These estimates of 30,000+ killed often appear in Western sources, but it is unclear what they are based on.
I think the opening of the Soviet archives and the calculation of casualty figures based on data from those archives makes earlier estimates such as these outdated. -YMB29 (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As for Konev, of course his Front had some impact on the fighting, but this article is about the Seelow Heights, not the entire Berlin Operation. The 1st Ukrainian Front did not participate in the battle. -YMB29 (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering the 1st Belorussian Front did not attack Berlin itself at all but encircled it without much of resistance after the Battle of Oder-Neisse (main battle Seelow) and left it to the Ukraine Front mainly to attack Berlin, it is perfectly plausible. Furthermore, Konev played an important part in the Oder-Neisse and Seelow Heights too, first attacking right next to it and then attacking it itself from the south, also helping Zhukov and attacking Schörner at the same time (who obviously was also important in Seelow). Thus the dead can also be spread over Konev's troops if you are that skeptical of anything but Isayev's radioshow as source. Every source I've found on the internet aside from that (I cannot see what Bellamy wrote) cites the ~30,000 figure. Also considering the Soviets often downplayed or outright lied about the casualties while the German specialty was to exaggerate civilian deaths, I believe the first number of 30,000 is correct. - JamesRussels 1:58, 12 June 2014

It is not about what you believe, but what the sources say.

Isaev is one of the top Russian military historians and he is heavily used as a source in this article.

He did research of the casualties in the Berlin Operation for his book, but stated the total number of casualties for this battle only in the radio interview.

Like I said, the 30,000+ killed estimate does not make sense, but because it is in a lot of sources I did not remove it from the infobox.

Once again, only the 1st Belorussian Front fought at the Seelow Heights. Konev's troops were far away. -YMB29 (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, most of the sources state the opposite of what you claim. Isaev is the one standing in a sea of countering evidence, and a radioshow where he was a guest is not a valid enough source. The casualties are perfectly plausible, since the Belorussian Front did not participate in the Battle of Berlin itself, but rather went around it and encircled it, letting the Ukrainian Front attack the city mainly. Thus this is the Belorussian's final big battle. Furthermore, Konev was not "far away" the Ukrainian Front participated in the battle and attacked Schörner's forces which were connected to Seelow itself, and then attacked Heinrici too, breaking the defense. So how about you actually think this through instead of parroting the same thing over and over without real evidence, as even this article itself states Konev attacked Seelow and played a reasonable part in bringing it down. - JamesRussels 20:33, 12 June 2014

I don't know what you are reading...

The 1st Belorussian Front did not participate in the Battle of Berlin itself?? This tells me that you don't know much about the Berlin Operation. I suggest you read more about it before editing here.

Konev is only mentioned here in the context of the "race" to Berlin between him and Zhukov. -YMB29 (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the 1st Belorussian did not attack Berlin itself in the Berlin Operation. This was their last big battle. They only surrounded Berlin with light resistance. I suggest you actually understand your own sources before telling others to do so. Konev was part of the operation, and not mentioning him even though he attacked Seelow from the south and fought German troops attached connected to the Seelow positions themselves is very silly. - JamesRussels 16:27, 13 June 2014

This is not an alternative history website or something like that...

Where did you even get those claims from? -YMB29 (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems I mixed up the names and confused the 1st with the 2nd BF. However, I do remember reading somewhere that the 1st mainly encircled Berlin and did not fully attack it itself. I will try to find that. I know for a fact that the Ukrainian Front entered it first too, not Zhukov. Anyway, regarding Seelow Schörner was connected to the Seelow positions of Heinrici, you will agree on that. Thus, as Konev was in cooperation with Zhukov and attacked Seelow from the South against Schörner, we can safely conclude he was part of the battle. Regarding casualties, again everyone cites the 30,000-33,000 number, with the exception of Isaev in that radioshow (but Isaev only talks about the 1st BF and Konev apparently complained he was losing 1000 men a day killed because of misdirection). The 30,000 figure is told by Western historians because of Krivosheev's own archive work, which apparently cites around the same numbers. Thus since Isayev is the only one to tell another number out of anyone, including other Russians, he must be put as an exception, not as the mainstream. He might have had faulty research or misrepresented the numbers, who knows. Can't be everyone is wrong except for him. If you really want to keep his numbers, I suggest you put his name seperate with the numbers under it, not use it as the main source. As for Konev, not including him in the list of commanders, as explained earlier, is dissonant. - JamesRussels 17:07, 14 June 2014

Again, this article is not about the Berlin Operation. Konev's troops did not take part in this battle, so you cannot put him here.

Only Zhukov's 1st Belorussian Front fought in the battle, and so the casualties here come only from that Front.

The Western estimate appeared in books way before the Krivosheev data became available, so it is not based on any archival data.

Isaev's estimate is way more accurate, especially given that Zhukov lost 37,610 men killed or missing in the entire Berlin Operation as I explained above. -YMB29 (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Konev attacked Seelow from the South and fought with Schörner's troops connected to Seelow. Again, not including him seems very dissonant and illogical. The Western estimates are based on Krivosheev's archive work, they're not just pulled out of nowhere. You sound very naive. "A number of sources cited in this article derive their casualty numbers from Krivosheev's archival work. They include, Hamilton who uses the figure of 361,367 without further breakdown (Hamilton 2008, p. 372). Beevor lists the casualties as 78,291 killed and 274,184 wounded for a total of 352,475 (Beevor 2002, p. 424). Max Hastings uses 352,425 Soviet casualties (1st Belorussian Front: 179,490, 2nd Belorussian Front: 59,110, 1st Ukrainian Front: 113,825), but increases the portion of killed to over 100,000 (Hastings 2005, p. 548)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_berlin Notice how they're based on Russian estimates. Isayev is the only one who contradicts anyone else, even other Russians. As you see, Zhukov likely lost quite a bit more. I will change your edits to mine because you obfuscate the data, creating the illusion that Russians all agree on Isayev's estimate. A lot of Russian historians don't even agree on howmany soldiers the USSR lost during the entirety of the war, because the archive data shows something else than what Isayev and the government say. -JamesRussels 15:43, 15 June 2014

Here is a source from 1985 (the Krivosheev book was published in 1993) that claims 30,000 were killed [3]. So you are the one being naive here...

If you don't like the word Russian then I can remove it, but don't make changes without proving your point here.

You are only proving my point by quoting that note. Beevor and others use the Krivosheev data for the overall casualties, but they don't realize that the figure of 30,000+ killed in this battle contradicts that data, when looking at the casualties by the Fronts. Once again, the 1st Belorussian Front could not have lost 30,000+/37,610 men as killed in this battle alone.

Konev did not attack the Seelow Heights and this article is only about the fighting there. You can't deny facts. -YMB29 (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You're obfuscating again. Krivosheev was published in 1993, and all Western historians based themselves on his archival data. Also the 1985 source you gave indeed too contradicts you, stating "30,000 fell in the heavy fighting before the Seelow Heights on the steep West banks of the River Oder...A third of all Red Army soldiers who fell on the territory of what today is the GDR died in this battle." This talks about the battle of Seelow and its positions directly, not the entire Berlin Operation as you claim yes, but the Western historians don't even base themselves on this but on Krivosheev's archive data. Once again, the 1st BF probably certainly lost around 30,000 this battle, and the only source who claims 37,610 in the entire Berlin Operation is Isayev. Now I put all historians and their claims there, and you change it back to the misleading text of "based on archival data" while all are based on archival data, and putting the single dissident Isayev first as source (radioshow, heh) instead of the Western historians which we also use the German casualties of. I cleared the situation up and even left in the unlikely numbers you put there, under Isayev's secondary name. Do not make the data intentionally vague and dishonest sounding again please.

As for Konev, as he attacked the South of Seelow heights and German troops and commander attached to Seelow, it seems nonsensical to not include him in the battle, specially since he's mentioned as an important factor. --JamesRussels 00:07, 17 June 2014

Important factor is not enough to put him in a battle he did not participate in...

The number 37,610 comes from Krivosheev's book and has been accepted by Western historians. I guess you missed the links I posted above.[4][5]

You failed to see my point... The 1985 source clearly shows that the claim of 30,000 killed existed before the archives were opened and Krivosheev's book came out, so it is not based on archival data.

You came in here making inaccurate claims and then when I explain things to you, you still fail to understand or to read carefully...

Again, don't make changes to the articles when the issues are still being discussed. -YMB29 (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Since he attacked it and the troops connected to it from the south, it's quite clear Konev did participate in one way or another. The links you quoted is David Glantz, which is not included in my citation of "based on Krivosheev's data", even if he might be based on that as well, and he does not speak about Seelow specifically at all. Bellamy cannot be read, you just showed his book without a quotation of any kind whatsoever. As shown earlier by my note, Hasting, Beevor and Hamilton all "base themselves on Krivosheev's archival data" and not a vague 1985 paper. Something you've apparently failed to grasp. You base all your claims on a radioshow by a lone Isayev and a circumstantial citation of Glantz, which is not mentioned in my citation of Krivosheev, even if he probably made use of Kirvosheev too obviously. Everyone gives different death toll numbers based on Krivosheev, and the overwhelming majority say around 30,000, at least in the West (which also gives the 12,000 German figure). Instead of obfuscating the article by saying only Isayev is "based on archival data" while in fact all (except the 1985 paper likely which is not used anywhere) are, I left in your dissident number with the name of the historian which claims it, and the same for all the others so the reader knows which historians claim what. This is called objectivity and clarification, something you seem to lack a bit as you find exposing sources and historian's names "controversial" apparently. -JamesRussels 17:18, 17 June 2014

You still fail to understand...

The figure of 37,610 killed that is used by Glantz and Bellamy for the entire Berlin Operation comes directly from the Krivosheev book (page 192 in the English version).

Hastings and Beevor base their total casualty figures (killed and wounded) for all the Fronts in the entire Berlin Operation on the Krivosheev data, but they don't base their Seelow Heights estimates on it.

No one can base estimates of the casualties at the Battle of the Seelow Heights on the Krivosheev book, because the book does not break down the data in a way that would allow anyone to estimate the casualties at that battle only.

Isaev had to go to the archives himself to get an estimate of the casualties in the battle.

The only thing obvious from the Krivosheev book is that the claim that 30,000 or 33,000 were killed at the Seelow Heights is dubious, given that the 1st Belorussian Front lost only 37,610 men as killed in the entire Berlin Operation.

Once again, the 1985 source only shows that the dubious claim of 30,000+ killed was around long before the archives were opened and the Krivosheev book was published. Here are more old sources.[6][7] -YMB29 (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems you do not understand either. That figure of 37,610 I've only seen in Glantz, you did not show what Bellamy said so apparently I have to trust your word on it. However, I strongly suspect that the 37,610 figure is not based off (or definitely not said in) one of Krivosheev's estimates (which regard the entire war), as the only people I've been able to find who said that figure was Glantz (and according to you Bellamy as well) while all the others come up with different figures as seen with their estimates of Seelow Heights, like this one for example [8] who claims "100,000 dead at Seelow alone based on Red Army estimates" which is interesting since it's published in 1995, after Krivosheev's research again. The majority of sources point towards the ~30,000 figure of dead (and probably missing) too, and the 37,610 number for 1st BF seems to become misrepresented or incomplete in this case, like so many things in the Soviet Union. My suggestion is to put my layout with each the historians' names in there again, and remove the "based on archival data" which is very misleading obviously as presumably all are "based on archival data" with different estimates. Also the most peculiar part is that you say Isayev went into the archives himself, but there's no actual citation of this either in the end or that he did it properly without mistakes or deflations himself. I assume you agree Konev was part of the battle then as well, since you did not reply regarding that. -JamesRussels 23:37, 18 June 2014

No, Konev cannot be added here as I explained before. You can ask someone else if you think I am wrong.

Isaev says in the interview that he went to the archives to look at the casualty reports, and he included the data in his book. The tables with some of the data were even in this article until you deleted them.

Isaev's estimate is the only one based on archival data and this statement is directly supported by a source.

If you are insisting that the dubious claim of 30,000+ is also based on archival data, then you at least need to find a source for this.

The claim that 100,000 were killed at the Seelow Heights is even more ridiculous, and what exactly it is based on is unclear.

Like I said, 37,610 comes directly from Krivosheev's book (page 158 in this version[9]).

The link to Bellamy's book works.[10] I don't know why you can't read it. -YMB29 (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Since Konev is mentioned as an important factor in every source and even this article and again he fought Seelow attachments to the south if not right on it, it is most logical to add him to here. I could not find a single word "archive" in the radioshow interview, even with ctrl+f. I'm sure he did, but what he claims against everyone else is still dubious, considering faulty or deceiving research wouldn't be a first anyway. All the estimates are based on archival data, as the other historians have also gone with Krivosheev's numbers generally, shown earlier quite clearly in my citation here "A number of sources cited in this article derive their casualty numbers from Krivosheev's archival work. They include, Hamilton who uses the figure of 361,367 without further breakdown (Hamilton 2008, p. 372). Beevor lists the casualties as 78,291 killed and 274,184 wounded for a total of 352,475 (Beevor 2002, p. 424). Max Hastings uses 352,425 Soviet casualties (1st Belorussian Front: 179,490, 2nd Belorussian Front: 59,110, 1st Ukrainian Front: 113,825), but increases the portion of killed to over 100,000 (Hastings 2005, p. 548)." [11]. He does not specify losses for Seelow as you said, and since the amount of dead is never fixated they all get a different number of them. Point of the matter is, saying he is "based on archival data" is misleading and obfuscating, because they are all based on archival data of all kinds. Again, the system showing the name of what each historians says is the best and most objective, considering only Isayev claims the other number out of anyone else. The 100,000 number according to the citation and histotrian is "based on Red Army estimates" so there you also go. More conflicting accounts. You're going in circles again now. Considering the accepted numbers in the West the number you support is more dubious than any of mine, again since the Red Army has such dubious and deceiving reports for a reputation in general, and not even Russians agree on the matter. I cannot read Bellamy it only gives me some reviews, no pages.-JamesRussels 2:18, 20 June 2014

I have to repeat the same things over and over, but you still don't get it...

Beevor and Hastings base their overall estimates on the Krivosheev book, but not their Seelow Heights estimates. Like I said above, the book does not break down the data in a way that would allow anyone to estimate the casualties at the Seelow Heights only.

Only Isaev bases his Seelow Heights estimate on archival data. In the interview he says:

Unfortunately, too often now the casualties for the entire Berlin Operation are projected on these wretched heights. As someone who viewed the casualty reports of the 1st Belorussian Front, I can say that at the Seelow Heights the 1st Belorussian Front did not lose 300 thousand men; it lost 20 thousand men, including 5-6 thousand irrevocable, that is killed and missing. Essentially, this makes up a smaller part of the Berlin Operation as a whole, and the losses of the 1st Belorussian Front in that operation. They were part of just one of the episodes. And we should not think that the heights were, as they say, soaked with blood and covered with corpses; it was not at all like that.

Original text: Но, к сожалению, сейчас очень часто проецируют потери во всей берлинской операции на эти несчастные высоты. Вот, я как человек, который смотрел донесения о потерях 1-го Белорусского фронта, могу сказать, что за Зееловские высоты 1-й Белорусский фронт потерял не 300 тысяч человек, он потерял 20 тысяч человек, включая 5-6 тысяч человек безвозвратных потерь, то есть убитые и пропавшие без вести. В сущности, это составляет меньшую часть, как и берлинская операция в целом, так и потери 1-го Белорусского фронта в этой операции. Они были лишь одним из эпизодов. И не следует думать, что они, как говорится, пропитаны кровью и были засыпаны трупами – это было совсем не так.

There are conflicting accounts, but you have to recognize the dubious ones.

The most reliable and accurate estimates go into the infobox. You can put all the other ones in a note, like it is done in the Battle of Berlin article.

The only reason Konev is mentioned here a lot is that much of the text was copied from the Berlin article. -YMB29 (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

So he said he viewed the casualty reports on the BF? Well according to that other historian, he saw an actual "100,000 dead at Seelow alone" and "based on the Red Army's estimates". So why should you really take one unreliable estimate over the other? The reason the phrase "based on archival data" is misleading, is because it implies all the other estimates are just like that, poof, made out of thin air. This is obviously not the case, because they all based themselves on some form of archive data. What you don't get is that Isayev's supposed estimate is not the only one "based on archival data" just because he claims to have seen reports stating some other number on that battle (why aren't they anywhere?). Thus, I cannot understand why you don't like the more objective form of claims with historian's names above them like I put them earlier, and instead want to put obfuscating phrases into the mix and use a historian when it suits you (Hastings for the German estimates) but hold up a Russian, who plenty of other Russians disagree with even on total WW2 Soviet casualties, solely on his word in a radioshow later. It's kind of humorous, it's like you deliberately don't want clarity in the article and instead want to keep things vague (in other articles, the casualties are told often with the name of each historian's claims above them). As for Konev, this is not the only article where he is mentioned. It seems quite clear he took part of the battle, even if towards the end. Don't know why you so vigorously keep denying this. -JamesRussels 14:57, 22 June 2014

Estimates of 30,000 or 100,000 killed at the Seelow Heights are unreliable because they contradict the widely accepted Soviet casualties data found in the Krivosheev book (1st Belorussian Front's total casualties in the Berlin Operation).

And yes they are "made out of thin air," since there is no indication about what they are based on.

If you have sources stating that they are based on archival data, then let's see them. Otherwise, it is just your speculation.

Like I said before, you can put the different estimates in a footnote like it is done in other articles.

If Konev really took part in the battle, then you would not have trouble finding a source that says he did. -YMB29 (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm back, was on holiday and forgot about this discussion until I checked my history. First off, the Soviet casualties are not "widely accepted", at least not amongst Western historians. Every source on the internet I've found cites the 30k number, inclouding obviously the historians in the 2000s, way after Krivosheevs research. If you think it's unreliable and "made out of thin air", then I'm going to have to call Isayev's estimate complete bogus based on incomplete and/or falsified Soviet data, propaganda of sorts. "Archival data" is semantic nonsense, as the Western historians base themselves on total Battle of Berlin archival estimates, as shown before. I will put each historians name under an estimates, like it is done in numerous other articles. Instead of your misleading sentence. I would put "Western" and "Russian" but this would be untrue, since there is a lot of disagreement in Russia over WW2 casualties. -JamesRussels 18:24 12 July 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it is only your opinion that the 30,000+ figure is based on archival data. You need sources to back this up.

The Soviet casualties from the Krivosheev book are widely accepted in Western sources. Even Beevor uses them.

Also, reverting sourced information is disruptive. -YMB29 (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Beevor does not come to the same conclusion as you or Isayev. Every Western historian or website I've come across says the same things. I am putting historian's names together with their claims, you don't like this because it exposes your pathetic and biased cherrypicking. I am reverting your opinion piece that says they are exaggerated too, Isayev does not say this. He gives his own estimates. I will check back every few days and see how you stubbornly refuse a more objective approach, and correct you for it until you manage to extinguish that clear bias. Just like the clever little edits where you remove some positive adjectives for the German side, yet leave the negative one in. ("Heinrici's brilliant defense" you remove the brilliant, but you leave 'poor' in, in "Schörner's poor defenses"). Low tier sabotage. -JamesRussels 21:21 16 July 2014

I was not the one who added the word poor, but the fact that the defenses were overcome easily shows that they were relatively poor. As for the word brilliant, it sounds like an exaggeration, but it can be put back if you can find a source for the statement.

Read the quote from Isaev above. Obviously, he thinks the casualties are often exaggerated.

The estimate from Western sources is in there. What more do you want? Noting that Isaev's figure comes from archival data is fair, since it is the only one we know that does.

So what you are saying is that you will continue to revert what you don't like without agreement in discussion? This can get you banned for persistent edit warring. Looking at your talk page, your edits have caused problems recently in other articles too... -YMB29 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Part 2

Good thing you did more disruptive edits on the Vistula-Oder article, otherwise I would have completely forgotten about this article and discussion. My problem is that you propagate a clear Soviet bias in this article (and the other) and regard only Isayev as "authority sourcing", as shown by the fact that you add his praising for the Red Army etc. yet remove that for the German Army, on the basis of "unsourced info". In that case, it would be customary to either delete the entire "unsourced text" or leave it up till a source comes. The fact that they held up Soviet forces for 4 days with a 10:1 manpower disadvantage, means that they really weren't poor given the circumstances, at all. May I also remind you that you act like this article is somehow yours or that you're an expert and added your references in without consensus as well, it was just that nobody was there to see it and correct you when needed. Furthermore on the casualties numbers, it would after all appear that casualties on both sides could be lower than thought. Hastings claims 30k killed for Soviets, and 11-12k for the Germans (apparently the 12,322 number is not from any German reports or him but a Russian video from long ago on youtube, which is now dead). The German medical reports taken from the archives (Heeresarzt 10-day casualty reports) also show lower though, showing 7838 killed and missing, and 1218 wounded in the period of 11-20 April http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec45.html. I will add this as an alternative source, clearer than some obscure radioshow as well. Another source of irony is that you edit in nonsense in the other article which would be recognized by you as false immediately otherwise if you thought past your biased nose, and without any sort of consensus as well. Yet you whine about me doing so here. Guess what, you (or I) don't own any of these articles.JamesRussels (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page you've also been involved in multiple edit-warring cases and disruptive problems as a result of your biased cherrypicking and you accuse me of it instead, so for that: right back at you, hypocrite.JamesRussels (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So you are turning to insults I see... That is not allowed here, see WP:NPA. You should apologize.

I am going to ignore your little tirade here and just say that you need to learn the rules if you want to edit here. In particular, you have to understand WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS and WP:IJDLI. Otherwise, you are just being disruptive.

The website you added is not a reliable source. Also, the data presented there is raw (primary source data) and you cannot interpret it yourself. -YMB29 (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not owe an apology to anyone. I called out your behavior, and you do not seem to like it. Looking at your history and block log, it seems that you are in fact the one who needs to learn how to behave around here. This is not your personal "Glorious Patriotic Russia" website or article. The website lists precise Heer 10-days reports used by multiple historians and also comes to the conclusion of the higher German losses estimate of ~5,3 million in adding everything up. Nothing about it is out of consensus, and you can interpret the data for the Armies and Detachments fine and easily for each ten day-period, unless it says "no reporting" for a certain period. It also gives corrected complete figures in notes under it. You're going to have to try something else if you wish you further your biased agenda on here, as I've after research also relented on the Isayev issue, even though a radioshow where you have to trust him on his words is less reliable than cold-hard documents and figures which agree with the Western consensus.JamesRussels (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You are again continuing with personal attacks and accusations...

Where does the data from the website come from? Who is the author? It is not a reliable source. Again, read the policies and guidelines that I linked above.

Even if that data is from a reliable primary source, you still need a source that says what the German casualties were in the battle, and not get it yourself from some table that has ten day data for armies and army groups.

You also don't know how accurate or complete that data is. German casualties reporting is known to have problems with that in the last year of the war.

So again you can't interpret the data yourself; you need a reliable source that does that: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.[12] -YMB29 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am continuing with calling you out on your behavior. The fact you have some Red Army bias is quite clear to anyone who reads through your posts now and in other subjects:
-You basically called me some disruptive editor earlier yet it is you who has multiple warnings and blocks on your account, and have been furthering a POV or making disruptive edits for some time now.
-You do not even read the own rule you quote [13] as if you would read a single sentence further it says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Now unless you want to claim you need 'specialized knowledge' to look at some simple numbers with dates and throw them in a calculator (for the respective Army per period), I suggest you quit your nonsense about this, as these are cold facts.
-The figures are taken from the Deutsche_Dienststelle (WASt) and put together into a digital archive, they correspond perfectly with the OKW War Diary figure and about every study since 1956, including the most recent one which Overmans based himself on.

Overmans has adjusted the total dead for the Germans from ~4,3 million to ~5,3 as he included all remaining missing as legally dead as well, and he counted soldiers who became dead during and a little after the war; PoWs, wounded etc and had declassified documents. His OKW reports numbers fit the ones of the site perfectly. All this you can see on [14]. The archive is completely reliable. For example: the digital archive lists the detailed Heer report of 31/12/1944: ~3,65 million dead and missing. Overmans says the OKW diary has ~3,8 million dead & missing on the same date. Yes, "very inaccurate". Heeresarzt reported the people who actually died each timeperiod in each respective army, on the battlefield (so ON Seelow and ON Vistula-Oder, not after.).

One more amusing thing: you say "German reporting was known to have had problems during the last year" which could be true to a point depending on how you look at it. Yet I bet you're oblivious to the fact that Krivosheev, someone who does the exact same thing as the archivemakers for the Heer reports did, lists 8,7 million dead & missing, while the Russian archives say 14 million or more. I've seen Krivosheev get called a "joke" by some Russians here and elsewhere. Of course, the Russian government conveniently adopts his research as official since it hits less hard than the truth (and thus Isayev comes with the lower casualty number claimed on here based on Krivosheev).

I hope you actually had the patience to read through a longer post, instead of dismissing it right away as part of your constant cherrypicking.JamesRussels (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

So if I have Red Army bias, then I guess you have Nazi Army bias?

Where do you see me making disruptive edits or ignoring basic rules like you do?

You don't seem to know much about Krivosheev. The Soviet Army military reports were generally accurate, unlike German reports from 1945. Overmans had to adjust the estimates because of this.

If the data from that website is from a reliable source, quote the source directly.

However, that is still original research based on a primary source, because no where does it say on that website what the casualties were in this battle. You are deriving this based on your special knowledge and assumptions, which may or may not be correct. -YMB29 (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

-Oh I don't know, perhaps you should take a look at your edits and "rewordings" to make anything slightly negative about the Red Army sound insecure and false, it's also called weasel wording. In fact, this very discussion is testimonious to your bias. If you were looking at this with somewhat objective goggles, you'd understand your absurdities and straws you cling on to. Actually, the very fact that you call it "the Nazi Army" while its name used in normal English and most languages is just "Wehrmacht" or "German Army" already gives your state of mind away decisively, kind of ironic. I don't go around calling the Red Army "Marxist/Stalinist Army" or "Bolsheviks" either.
-I think for your disruptive edits you have to look backs into the last couple days. As for the rules, you don't even fully read (as proven earlier) or understand the own rules your desperately cling on to.
-Sorry, the the references and controversy regarding Krivosheev is already written in stone I'm afraid, there are also more than a few upset Russians on various talkpages concerning his figures and historical forums. In fact, the contradiction between the Soviet Archives and Krivosheev's research are in full light on the wikipage itself even. Anyway, this doesn't further have much to do with the conversation at hand.
-I suggest you look up what "original research" means, as that would be me going into the physical archives myself and throwing around some documents I found and all sorts of other implications. The research has already been done; that is translating the hundreds/thousands of documents from the archives themselves, by the individuals who made that digital archive (they're called "TF", either an organization or pseudonym from a person who wishes to stay anonymous). This is noticed by the ordening of each document according to their archival location and row number, "name" etc. There are scanned copies also, which are not to be found anywhere else on the internet. As for the figures, I've already explained why they are most likely correct and how they match with the mainstream since the OKW diary (which they are extracted from practically). Unless you can prove these detailed reports are all somehow a fabrication and made up in someone's mind, and they also falsified the scanned .JPG's and then they also gave a fake identification number of the reports etc etc, I'm afraid you're grasping at straws.

As for Overmans, since its explained much better than I can, here is a detailed "Critical assesment of Overman's methdology" complete with tons of references with pagenumbers at the bottom: http://ww2stats.com/Overmans.pdf

As for me, I will be going to bed now. Despite this circling and hostile conversation, have a good night.JamesRussels (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well hopefully the conversation won't be that hostile anymore.

Again, the website may have the right data, but you need to find that data in a reliable source.

Original research is not just about the archives; it is: any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.[15]

You cannot estimate the total casualties in a battle yourself based on archival data. It is not just about adding up numbers. You have to know exactly what numbers to add and you are also making an assumption that the data is complete and accurate (and it is not according to Overmans), which means you are analyzing and synthesizing.

Krivosheev's data is widely accepted and used by reliable sources; those who don't agree with it are in the minority.

As for Nazi Army, it is not accurate, but Red Army is not accurate also. -YMB29 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

-This is a translation of a primary source, meaning there is no writer to say fancy stories and entertainment on the side. The person/group that made the website ("TF") has gone into the archives themselves, scanned some documents (see the Wehrmacht reports for 1939-41), and translated the rest. Furthermore, none of the data provided is out of the mainstream consensus. It matches the OKW/OKH war diary and front-line reports pretty much perfectly on 31/12/1944, even when compared to Overman's claims.
-Secondly, I'm not conducting any original research, as these do not require any analyzation or conclusion. All this requires is that you look at who participated in the battle: the 9th Army. You then look at the tables given for 11-20 April, when the battle (roughly) took place. You add up the causalties given for the 9th Army from a calculator and tadaa, you have your (most accurate) estimates for the battle of Seelow-Heights (and Vistula-Oder, with an Army Group instead). This falls under the policy: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." No one needs any specialized knowledge for adding some numbers in a calculator from a primary source, unless that person is mentally incapacitated (in which case that person should not be on wikipedia editing things in the first place).
Again, for Overman's methods and explanation of his methods (which are not fully conclusive at all), see http://ww2stats.com/Overmans.pdf where it is all explained.
-Krivosheev has been accepted by most Western sources as his research is the official position of the Russian government post-Cold War. It is called politics, and has been given legitimization by your government, rightfully or not. Fact of the matter is most opposition to his numbers come not from the West but from Russia itself, and they actually plain collide with the own Soviet archives which claim over 5 million more dead & missing during the same period. Anyways, this discussion is about the German figures, not Soviet ones (which I have relented on since it is a whole new conversation had on other pages).
-"Nazi Army" is indeed not accurate, not in any language, but especially not English. "Red Army" is accurate in most languages, but what matters most is that it's how it's called in English, I refer you to the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army "Red Army" is a phrase used by most historians, "Nazi Army" not. Another point of interest regarding your bias besides this, is how you for example changed Mark Solonin's status in a sentence on the casualty page from "historian" to "publicist" even though he's quoted with references on his own wikipage as an "historian". Is this maybe because you don't like him bashing Krivosheev's (lower) figures?JamesRussels (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

One more thing, you seem to have changed the edits again and added "for Army Group Weichsel". This is incorrect, the figures I added on the page are for the 9th Army only, which is the only one who participated in the battle of Seelow Heights proper. Weichsel would include the Third Panzer Army, which did not participate in this battle (it was stationed more north) and the Pz3 did not report its casualties for 11-20 April (as seen on the web archive http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec45.html). The fact you find it unreliable when it's the only such detailed archive on the internet, is interesting and more a matter of opinion. Here is an example of an unreliable website http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/ . Notice the difference between the two? The last one has no categorization, no reports with it, no sources.JamesRussels (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter how detailed it is. Such data is for historians to study, not you. You could study it for yourself and make conclusions, but you are not a reliable published source that can be used here. You just are unable or unwilling to understand WP:PRIMARY.

Again, you do need special knowledge to know what numbers to add. The battle did not take place during the entire ten day period (11-20 April). Some other units may have participated in the battle that you don't know of or some units of the 9th Army may not have suffered casualties in the battle. Plus the data is most likely incomplete. You have to leave the analyzing and estimating to reliable sources.

The data is on a private website and, no matter how reliable you think it is, it is not a reliable source by wiki rules.

Marginal sources in Russia criticize Krivosheev, like Solonin, who is not an actual historian (no academic degree). So calling him a historian would be misleading.

Nazi Army is not used much, but just Nazis is... What is your point? -YMB29 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

My point is the data was taken straight out of the archives, coincides with the other reports, and has been agreed to get used on multiple other articles without me having an input in it either. This is the closest you will get to the real figures as of now, as Beevor just estimates something based on the Overman's sample tactic, and it was explained here http://ww2stats.com/Overmans.pdf what is inaccurate about that sampling method. You don't need any special knowledge to add numbers, now you're just pretending to be ignorant with me. You had the numbers for 11-20 April (the only ones available) for the 9th Army, which was the only one involved here in Seelow. If you want to claim other units are involved too, you should prove it. But the '9th Army' is what the sourced information on this page itself says, and this is what you have to base yourself on when you add the numbers in the calculator. Stop the intellectual dishonesty. The web archive is primary source information with enumeration to the real life archive and I already explained perfectly why this is reliable (nothing out of the consensus on 31/12/44). The same historian you like for the German estimate here (Beevor) claims 30,000 dead on the Soviet side instead. Obviously, you don't like that since it paints the Red Army in a bad light even at their peak in 1945 combat-wise. Funny how you say Solonin is not a historian because he has no academic degree, yet Mcateer apparently is even though he is a lawyer by profession (hint, he isn't a historian either). Also it's not just him, it's the CDMA archives themselves that contradict Krivosheev and his official Russian government's stance. Yes and you said "Nazi Army", even though it is called that only by biased people such as yourself (Just like "Communist/Marxist Army" is). On the other hand "Red Army" is the objective name in English. You already lost here, it's quite clear where your interests lie (and it seems to not be in historical objectivity up until now!). The 1945 record of German reporting was incomplete, this is true and shown on the website as well (where it says "no reporting"). However, for 11-20 April things were reported. The battle was not 11-20 April, but that is why you say behind it that it's for said period, since you cannot 'zoom in' further.JamesRussels (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Who verified the data from the website? You?

I am sure you can use a calculator. You don't have to prove this. However, your ability to analyze that data is what I question. You are not an expert. That is why there are rules here against personal analysis.

You are making assumptions about the raw data you are looking at. Incomplete data does not only mean that it says "no reporting" in the table... It means that the numbers themselves are wrong.

I never said Mcateer is a historian. If you have an estimate of the casualties from a real historian, post it here.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Krivosheev. Again, his data is widely accepted and your opinion means little.

I don't care if Nazi Army is widely used or not. It was the army of Nazi Germany. And I can also say that it is clear where your interests lie... -YMB29 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I already proved how the data on the website is correct, and how it also provides scanned reports and references straight from the archive and OKW Diary. Unless you can prove all reports on there are incorrect and somehow all fabricated with false scanned papers and false categorizations, you're out of luck. The only thing I "analyzed" is how the numbers match and are not out of consensus with anything on 31/12/44, and how they provide exact numbers instead of vague estimates. They have also been accepted on other articles as a primary source (translation thereof).

The only indication of incomplete reporting is Overman's sampling method, which the makers of the web archive explained in the PDF I linked about 3 times now, and you still haven't read.

You're right, Mcateer is not a historian, and he's not a "reliable source". About Vistula-Oder; Christopher Duffy, the main source on the numbers and an actual historian, says STAVKA claimed 400,000 casualties on the German side (p.114 from 'Red Storm on the Reich'). He does not provide any casualty numbers himself except for the STAVKA claim. Mcateer does not have an academic book, nor does he use primary or secondary sources for his wild guestimates, nor does he have any reviews except for the Amazon user reviews, which expose some big flaws in his book. He is also out of historical consensus and claims 250k more casualties than the 450k available. Not to mention a German Army let alone Army Group never got 100% casualties in an enemy operation, so it is completely impossible. He is a quite literally a joke with no basis, and no place in a wiki article. The primary source from the archive is much closer to the real number of casualties. Historians do not provide any casualty numbers for the Germans in the battle, such as here it is said "No reliable estimates" (http://books.google.nl/books?id=8Llw8JSZEXYC&pg=PA476&dq=vistula+oder+offensive+casualties&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=ncsVVI2AIoeUO4mzgOgI&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=vistula%20oder%20offensive%20casualties&f=false). But that book was made before the web archive was available (2009). On historical forums, while usually not a reference for anything, it is interesting to not that the web archive has also been accepted and verified. Here for instance they come to the conclusion of 104,000 (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=112689&start=15) for the Vistula Oder offensive, based on other archival papers. There are no historians with estimates, and Mcateer is besides not being a historian also completely bogus with no references as explained earlier.

Thus, a primary archival source without anything out of consensus and with precise numbers and (scanned) reports trumps your non-source.

Krivosheev was just brought up to highlight your hypocrisy earlier, I am well aware he is accepted in the West, as he is the official consensus position of the Russian government.

You don't care what the correct non-biased name is? I don't care about your non-source and opinion then. You have not provided any compelling arguments and instead try to bring everything into doubt without basis yourself. I think that next time you make disruptive edits again with no argument except "well a historian has not verified all the hundreds of files on the website yet" I will call a moderator and some other people to make the final decision. JamesRussels (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the message left on the Vistula Oder page for you to see. I expect you to not do any more disruptive editing now:

Here is a new historical book from 2012(!), written by two actually studied historians that quote the webarchive you don't like ("ww2stats.com") in the references of their academic work: http://books.google.com/books?id=nHavAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=ww2stats.com&source=bl&ots=CFYGBMeRQ7&sig=vtHoT6fhH68JzRoq9xqN-Xl-nHc&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=DuMeVKX_KoPrPIb8gcAH&ved=0CFIQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=ww2stats.com&f=false. The writers of the research are prof. Hein Klemann and Sergey Kudryashov. About each of them:
Klemann: has a PhD in history earned from the University of Amsterdam, has written multiple academic peer-reviewed books and is a professor. Source: http://www.eshcc.eur.nl/klemann/ and here an older list: http://www.pubhist.com/author/3222/hein-am-klemann.

The co-author of the book is Sergey Kudryashov, he is "a scientific researcher (Mitarbeiter) at the German Historical Institute in Moscow. He studied history at the Russian Academy of Sciences, and has published on the Second World War and Soviet history." Source: http://www.bloomsbury.com/author/sergei-kudryashov.

This is now irrefutable proof that the web archive is reliable in every single way. This discussion should be over now. Greetings JamesRussels (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, as I have explained on the other talk page, that is still not enough verification. Go to the RS noticeboard.

Leave the talk about Mcateer and the Vistula–Oder Offensive for the other talk page.

This battle was not fought only by the 9th Army. SS divisions like Nordland and Nederland fought in this battle also. Where are the casualties for them?

Reinforcements from the 3rd Panzer Army also participated[16], but there was no reporting for that army at all according to your website.

Furthermore, like I said before, the given numbers for the 9th Army are themselves likely incomplete.

So it is not just about adding numbers from a table as you claim...

You are not competent enough to make estimations yourself and should leave that to published historians or authors. That is why the rule about primary sources exists. -YMB29 (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It says in that book that "he requested it", meaning it's unknown whether that actually was delivered. You also have zero citations for your claim that the SS participated in Seelow itself (cough, similar reversion of roles earlier with Konev). Speculation that it is themselves likely incomplete is not enough, as there is no hard evidence that it is incomplete besides the "no reporting" for some dates. The only factor of this is Overmans, which has been dispelled earlier and claims that reports during the entire war were incomplete, not just 1945. Which is an almost baseless claim. (Have you actually read it [17]? It is an interesting read backed up by sources like Zetterling). I am not making estimates myself, I simply copied what is written in the translated primary source data, which is new and accepted recently by two professional historians with PhDs and academic works like I just showed. The primary sources rule is about special knowledge interpretation, none such exists here. Again you are being intellectually dishonest for your own ends, even when faced with irrefutable proof earlier. I myself am tired of this conversation so I can let you put a note that "the figures for 1945 are speculated to be incomplete by various researchers, the main proponent being Overmans" or something of the sort. But I will not let you "get away" with pushing your agenda with a circular argument that is dispelled again. If you do, I will contact a moderator/ask for a 3rd opinion next time if you drag this on any further your way without a leg to stand on here. Greetings JamesRussels (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sure you know better than Overmans... He is as dubious of a source as Krivosheev, right?

The SS divisions are mentioned in this article.

Knowing in detail what units participated in the battle is special knowledge, which you lack. So how can you estimate anything? -YMB29 (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Point of the matter is, Overmans des not actually know what was incomplete and what wasn't, he does not provide any numbers for each battle. He just says reporting must have been incomplete based on his sample (while the dozens of researchers before him don't except for 1945). I have explained how the the numbers from him match the numbers in the archive (~3,65 million vs ~3,8) on 31/12/44, I have given you a critique with sources of his sampling method for determining "incomplete reporting", and you have never really brought him up yourself, I just gave you an example of the only person that used it (which might or might not be correct, and unknown when). Now, I have given you a way out by putting a note regarding numbers for 1945 and Overman's opinion on them as well. You did not take it. I earlier showed you how the source is fine (accepted by professional historians recently in academic work), you refuse to acknowledge it even though you're cornered. Next you came with some textbook sentence where he said he "requested" reinforcements, which in fact does not mean they came and according to the beginning of this article he never got them. Now you came up with "the SS was there too" and that it counterattacked, which could be true, but the problem is this is unsourced and you don't know if they came from Seelow or some flank they were stationed on.

You estimate it on the basis of what's said in this article. If only the 9th Army participated in the battle itself (what it looks like: "They were opposed by about 110,000 soldiers of the German 9th Army,[5] commanded by General Theodor Busse, as part of the Army Group Vistula.") you count only that. If you think the order of battle is incomplete, add more units to it with sources. Problem is you can't, because you don't have sources showing this. And you're also cornered on other issues. So now, you've again given no arguments and instead of that a condenscending tone basically implying that "Overman's is completely correct and the absolute truth, just like Krivosheev" without backing up your statements again. I also like how you refuse to acknowledge that the Russian archives show 5 million for dead and missing than Krivosheev, and that he makes up all kinds of excuses for it. But that's unrelated comrade! Of course tovarish Krivosheev is correct!

Anyway, you've done what I thought you will do, and then posted some nonsense on my page about how I'm edit-warring (right back at you sherlock). In your own words "I can't let you get away with this" now. JamesRussels (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice: I have asked for a Third Opinion first~. JamesRussels (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You still continue to insist that you know better than Overmans and Krivosheev... I don't care what you think and it is all off topic.

The accuracy of German records and how right Overmans is should not be an issue for this article, but you are making it an issue because you are trying to use primary source data for the casualties.

If you need sources for the SS divisions participating in the battle, see here[18][19].

Your claim that only the 9th Army fought in the battle falls apart... -YMB29 (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what Overmans and Krivosheev say since: 1. Krivosheev has nothing to do with the topic at hand and gives no reliable numbers for any German casualties (and I am not the one who "knows better" little strawfellow, the archives do and that is not my case but a fact said on the wikipage itself). He was brought up to highlight your hypocrisy. 2. Overmans does not give any figures for this battle, and is in the minority as his views are radical and go past the 1945 incompleteness to the entire war 1939-45, with little to back it up with as explained earlier.

Primary sources are the most valid most of the time, specially when it's a case of hard numbers like here.

You have finally provided sources to anything other than the 9th Army participating. We've finally made some progress regarding your argumentive skills. I'm very surprised. The Order of Battle will have to be updated here (it says only 9th Army in the sentences).

My offer for a note compromise regarding incomplete figures for 1945 still stands with both this and the other article. Greetings JamesRussels (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And just so we're clear, Mcateer I do not count as a source for it, but the other looks more reputable. JamesRussels (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You are just continuing to embarrass yourself...

Overmans is the most respected source for German casualties, but you don't care what he says... I guess all you care about is what you think.

Secondary sources are preferred on wikipedia. If you don't agree, then you will have trouble editing here. -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Overmans does not give numbers for this battle, he just speak about the whole ensemble. There are countless critiques on him and his work, including the paper I just gave you, and I believe Zetterling wrote a few dozen pages about it as well. He is until now the only one who goes against the other dozens of researchers, and he has some valid and invalid points. Regardless, he is irrelevant for this discussion, since this is not about the entire war but about this specific battle. By the same logic my argument would be that the Soviet casualties here are too low and not reliable because dozens of other researchers contradict Krivosheev and the Russian archives objectively say 14 million Soviets were killed and missing during the war. That is also irrelevant, because it is looking at the entire war to back up a statement here, which doesn't work.

Secondary sources are preferred, but not when primary sources are crystal clear and provide more reliable estimates that cannot be misinterpreted either (and they cannot here) or when the secondary sources are plain crappy guestimates with nothing to back them up with. JamesRussels (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not crystal clear as I have explained. -YMB29 (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

But it is. You just like to shrug off all references in favour of often unrelated nonsense and misrepresenting source guidelines for your ends. JamesRussels (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not the only one who told you to follow the guidelines about primary sources.

You are complaining about unrelated nonsense when it is you who rambled on about Overmans and Krivosheev... -YMB29 (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are, you misrepresented it and pretended there was some absolute rule and violation made, while there wasn't. The other just said reliable secondary sources are preferred when available, which there obviously aren't. And "preferable" does not mean "obligatory" as there are always special situations regardless.

That was just me filling in your argument for you from my own knowledge, since you left an excruciating amount of holes in your 'arguments'. JamesRussels (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would not be complaining about holes in arguments if I were you...

Special situations? You mean when you don't like what the secondary sources say? -YMB29 (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean when the secondary sources available are unreliable garbage that cannot be defended by its proponent (you). You provide zero arguments, there's no holes because there is nothing to prick holes in. My primary source has been backed up by up-to-standards historians and general historical consensus on numbers, yours is a joke more than anything as of now. JamesRussels (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You still don't get it... Your opinion about a reliable source means nothing here.

What does "general historical consensus on numbers" mean? Did you just make that up while writing it? -YMB29 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A battle map would be helpful

A battle map (example: File:Battle of Stalingrad.png) would make this article much more helpful and easy to understand. GMRE (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of the Seelow Heights. 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/20110525014346/http://www.onwar.com/articles/9905.htm to http://www.onwar.com/articles/9905.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514001340/http://www.onwar.com/faq.htm to http://www.onwar.com/faq.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)