Talk:Battle of Bautzen (1945)

German Commander at the Battle of Bautzen

The article, though interesting, contains a minor error. The German commander is listed as Herman von Oppeln-Bronikowski. The Commander of the Herman Goering Fallschirmjaeger (Parachute) Panzer Corps at the time was Generalleutnant Wilhelm Schmalz. At the time of the Battle of Bautzen, von Oppeln-Bronikowski was the commander of the 20th Panzer Division. The 20th Panzer Division participated in the attack along with the units cited in the article and as well as others referenced below.

The German order of battle, under the command of the 4th Panzer Army (Gen der Panzertruppe Graeser), included:

Herman Goering Fallschirmjaeger (Parachute) Panzer Corps GenLt Wilhelm Schmalz; 1st Herman Goering Fallschirmjaeger (Parachute) Panzer Division, GenMaj Lemke; 2nd Herman Goering Fallschirmjaeger (Parachute) Panzergrenadier Division, GenMaj Walther

Grossdeutschland Panzer Corps, Gen der Panzertruppe Jauer; XXXXVIII Panzer Corps, GenLt Hageman

Panzer Grenadier Division "Brandenburg," GenMaj Schulte-Heuhaus; 20th Panzer Division, GenMaj von Oppeln-Bronikowski; 17th Infantrie Division

References: Fire Brigades, The Panzer Divisions, 1943-1945, by Kamen Nevenkin; The History of the Fallschirm Panzerkorps Herman Goering, by Franz Kurowski; The History of the Panzerkorps Grossdeutschland, vol. 3, by Helmut Spaeter;

Herman von Oppeln-Bronikowski, was an Olympic Equestrian himself, later coached the Canadian Olympic Equestrian team after the war.

Of other interest, the "Fuhrer Begleit Division" composed originally of members of Hitler's escort unit and later expanded to a divisional unit, was destroyed slightly north of Bautzen on 22 April 1945. The unit was commanded by GenMaj Ernst Remer, the battalion commander responsible for putting down the 20 August 1944 plot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.114.29 (talk • contribs) 19:43, April 26, 2010

On the other hand, the source I cite below (Komornicki) attributes the German operation to Field Marshal Ferdinand Schörner. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Other sources I looked into either name Schorner or nobody at all. I cannot find any sources for Oppeln-Bronikowski. I am removing it, also noting anon's comments above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

German victory?

Reading Stanisław Komornicki, Poles in the battle of Berlin, Polish Ministry of National Defense, 1967, this battle is described on p.130-134. The source confirms most facts, but does not call the battle a German victory. Rather, it notes that while the Poles took heeavy casualties, they prevented the Germans from breaking to the Polish/Soviet rear and thus foiled their plan to interrupt the Soviet advance on Berlin. Also, the title of the chapter beginning on p.121 ("Field-marshal Schörner did not get there") and a lead sentence of the new chapter ("Berlin") on p. 138 "Just as the Polish armed forces staved off enemy efforts at coming to the rescue of stricken Berlin..." imply that the German goal was to link up with Berlin, which the Poles prevented. Overall, it looks to me like an early tactical German victory, ending with the eventual defeat (German forces forced to retreat) and strategic failure (Polish/Soviet advance on Berlin not interrupted). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a problem with the "victory/defeat" template IMO. As you point out, historical outcomes are rarely black or white affairs. W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Having done more research, Komornicki's account is too rosy, fitting into the Polish communist historiography. Nonetheless, all sources, modern included, seem to agree it was a (costly, Pyrrhic even) Polish-Soviet victory, and Germans failed at breaking through (in particular, to relieve Berlin and the 9th Army) and succeeded, at best, at inflicting heavy casualties on the Poles, stopping their push on Dresden, and withdrawing to surrender to the Western Allies. As such, I changed the infobox outcome to Polish-Soviet victory. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the definition of the tactical aim of the German operation. Bautzen was reoccupied and the Polish-Soviet advance was stopped. According to modern German sources the halt was a result of the lack of fuel supplies, not that much of the fighting. That an official Polish publication of 1967 doesn't call it a German victory isn't really surprising. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Germans halted the Polish-Soviet drive on Dresden and recaptured Bautzen, holding it until the end of the war. That sounds like a German victory to me, however meaningless it might have been in the big picture. Jsc1973 (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Spremberg–Torgau Offensive

I cannot find any sources that use this name outside Wikipedia (this article). Is it OR, or some improper translation (from Russian?)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

5th Guard or 5th Armored Guard?

I agree it was the regular one, but for future discussion, it is worth nothing some sources erroneously give the 5th Armored as fighting here. ([1]) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Bautzen (1945)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Review in progress

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   see below

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Review in progress

The first external link is dead Ajh1492 (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fix the DAB link on Reichenbach.

Check the Alt links on the images - there are a limited number of images

Need to apply convert tag to all units of measurement (kilometers, etc.)

Ajh1492 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede doesn't necessarily summarize the article. Would be nice to have a short blurb on the post-war view of the battle and surrounding controversy

What about subsections in Battle - that's a large chunk of text to see at once.

Might want to populate the units tag in the infobox.

Otherwise It's in good shape. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

All done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment

According to the source used for the German casualties, those 6,500 is only a Polish estimate which some "historians consider to be inflated". You may should add that in a footnote. StoneProphet (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A general problem seems to be the rather uncritical usage of sources published by the People's Republic of Poland's official military publishing house in 1967. Is it actually possible to write an "unbiased" article almost exclusively based on such a source? HerkusMonte (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, for the record, the 6500 number is NOT from a source from the People's Republic of Poland - but it does indeed say that 'some historians consider it to be inflated" (which should probably be mentioned). Likewise, the article is NOT based "almost exclusively" on "such a source".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I see the note has been added, and yes, the article uses modern sources to supplement the older ones. Hence the "Historiography" section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the reviewer have any further notes to add? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess we will know soon: [2]. But if not, I'd appreciate another reviewer stepping in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's my comments on the article lead:

• Reichenbach links to a disambiguation page right now; have it link to the right area.
• The lead seems to jump right into the battle; the first sentence doesn't really need to be more than noting where and when the battle was fought, along with who fought it. The second sentence can then start with "It was fought on the extreme southern flank.."
• "The battle took place during Konev's" have Ivan Konev's full name here and linked since it's the first mention in the article.
• "Bautzen - Niesky." shouldn't this have the same dash and spacing as Spremberg–Torgau? I could be wrong about that though. should probably say Bautzen-Niesky line rather than as is.

I'll review the rest later tonight. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Done all but the dashes, which I'll admit I don't understand well. Feel free to change them or tell me how to change them if you figure that out :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The dashes I don't understand all that well myself; in the edit window they all look the same, so I won't worry about it. Here's the rest of what I found:

• "changing the priorities he was given by Konev; " should be a comma
• "Wawer and Solak" full names due to first mention. Took be a couple reads to realize those were referring to authors of the source.
• "army had one officer for each 1,200 soldiers[13]).[2]" The two refs can just be put after the period to make it cleaner.
• "1st Armoured Corps, pushing towards Dresden," first comma not needed.
• "Muskauer Forst (forest) region" the stuff in parentheses doesn't seem necessary; I would like to think lay readers could figure out that means forest.
• The Drive on Dresden section is very parenthesis-heavy, which makes it hard to read. Any way some of the longer bits there can be meshed into the article?
• "Polish 2nd Army lost cohesion, split" The Polish...and split..
• "On April 21," 21 April; make sure all dates are in this format.

I'm stopping here for now because I'm getting tired for the day, but also because I'm concerned about the prose, as this has been a tough read for me so far. I'll read through it again tomorrow, but honestly I'm leaning towards failing this so far. Hopefully the article gets better the further in I get. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold and pass when the issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Reality sometimes intrudes upon other activities. The comments from Wizardman sounds good. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Re "Wawer and Solak" - I think it is customary to use only surnames of authors. Would you still ask for the first names if it was "Smith and Johnson"?

Re ""On April 21," 21 April" - I believe MoS allows either, as long as it is consistent, and I am pretty sure the dates are consistent with the month XX format.

I am rather surprising with your comments about the prose, the few minor details you noted seem, well, very minor to me (fixable, of course, but to speak of failing...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Was a bit surprised myself, since I've read your article before and usually been impressed. I chalked it up to lack of sleep, and as such here's a full review now:

• Note which sources are in Polish like you do for the one in German.
• "and was taking part in the Soviet Berlin Offensive." and took part sounds less passive.
• "The events of the April 21" of April 21
• "Polish 2nd Army lost cohesion" and "Polish 7th and 10th Infantry Divisions" The Polish
• The Polish retreat section seems to go from 22nd to 26th to 24th to 25th. Either i'm misreading or it's chronologically off as is.
• "bloody house-to-house combat, according to Bernd Eberhardt the halt was a result of the lack of fuel supplies." According should start a new sentence, or at least the comma should be replaced with a semicolon.
• "and retreat west, with majority of the" retreated, a majority.

It reads much better today, so my earlier comments don't apply. Article remains on hold and I'll pass it after these are addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all should be done. I hope that the revised retreat section is now more chronological. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything checks out now after another look-through, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

unreferenced additions re German historiography

Please see my comment here. I'd hope we can verify them and add inline citations soon; otherwise we will have to move that content to talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I added them. I also changed it and added more things from those 2 sources i used. However i didnt used your formatting for the refs and there are mb some style issues, so you should look over it again. StoneProphet (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This part was still unreferenced. I am all for restoring it if inline references can be added:

"German historiography mostly focused more on the regional outcome and speaks of a German victory (because of the recapture of large areas in Upper Lusatia, the by far fewer losses and the slowdown of Soviet and Polish advance to Dresden), but which came too late to have any significant impact on the outcome of the war. It is also sometimes called the last successful German tank operation of World War II."

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I readded a sentence because otherwise there would be only a mentioning of Polish historiography which would look somehow awkward. Ref would be the same as in the Aftermath section, which makes basically the same statement (Berndt 1999, Afhlen). StoneProphet (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to remove this again but as far as I can tell it is unreferenced in the article. For example, the sentence is the only one that mentions German historiography in the lead. If you want to restore it, please explain here which parts of the body support it. I'd also appreciate if you could provide clear references for it, with page numbers and quotes. Thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no "source" disussing German historiography on the meta level, if that is what you want. This is a completly minor offensive and there are only about 5 books in German at all which discuss this topic with more than a sentence (and most of them are already in the article). I fail to see which part of that sentence is not already sourced in the article.

• "battle had no strategic impact on the ongoing Battle of Berlin" -> thats already in the article and sourced.
• "German historiography has focused more on the tactical aspects of battle" since there was no strategic aspect of battle one can only focus on the tactic aspect, and yes, all German books about this topic are about the fightings at Bautzen and how Bautzen, Weißenberg and surroundings where recaptured. And those in the article (and the others probably as well) come to the conclusion that the battle was tactically successful but had no strategic impact or meaning on the bigger picture...
• "the operation successfully recaptured Bautzen and its surroundings, which were held until the end of the war" -> thats already in the article and sourced. So i guess this is about the second point? If it does not fit then make a proposal a rephrasing? This is just a sentence for completement, if you make a sentence about "contradictory statements" in the lead and then mention only the Polish view its just not complete. I don't think this is big deal... StoneProphet (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is that taking those sources are synthesizing them that way to claim that this is how German historiography views the battle is OR. Mind you, I am not claiming it is controversial, or that you are wrong. I am just pointing out to WP:V/WP:OR policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As a mention about German historiography, the quote below from Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg (German official history) illustrates the German view -- tactically successful but of low strategic import. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being too difficult indeed. If you think the quote supports the above claims, feel free to restore it with that cite, I'll not oppose it again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 06:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok i did. You can change German historiography into German literature, if you think that would fit more. StoneProphet (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

result

Since the war was almost over and Germany was about to surrender in a few days, shouldn't the result be more something like "Strategically indecisive"? It seems both sides overexaggerated the impact of this battle for propaganda purposes. Nobody won anything here. The Germans took a meaningless strip of land which they hold for the last days of the war. The Poles/Soviets won even less, in fact i fail to see anything they won at all, since the "victory claim" seems to be entirly based on the assumption that the Germans wanted and were about to break into Berlin, which seems to be clearly out of reality. StoneProphet (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The current claims in the article are either referenced, or will be removed shortly (see above). I am all for expansion and clarification and such, but the usual rhyme is as always "cite your sources". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, but the result field isnt a placeholder for the comparison of the the claims of the participants of a battle. Its for the actual result of the battle. I mean its nice that the People's Republic of Poland and the Wehrmacht claimed victory, but thats not very helpful for the reader and not the way the result field is intended for. StoneProphet (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, until we get good sources for "both sides claimed victory" (German side), it seems to me that the only result we can have is Polish and Soviet victory. I don't think we can use phrases like "Pyrrhic" in the box... :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not a result like "inconclusive" or "draw" ? The German attack didn't accomplish much besides beating up the 2nd Army, but not so much that 2nd Army wasn't able to remain in the field and subsequently participate in the offensive drive to Prague. I also think that including the claims of both sides is not a wise thing (for Wikipedia) to do. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Because that would be OR. Until we get sources that disagree, as noted in the historiography section, all Polish historiography refers to it as a victory, even if the newer works call it a very costly, almost Pyrrhic-like one. If we can get those German sources that claim victory for the German side, than we can say inconclusive / both sides claimed victory. But the current level of referencing for the German sources is not good enough (no inline cites). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You're likely correct from a Wikipedia definition of OR, although in "real life" it hardly takes any true research to arrive at a determination of the Bautzen outcome. This issue has surfaced in other battle articles. My suggestion is to not mention any outcome in the battle box and to discuss the opposing viewpoints in detail in the article itself. Of course, this approach won't stop others from popping in and adding an outcome to the battle box without understanding why an outcome was left out of it in the first place. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, both Erickson (p. 591 of Yale paperback edition of The Road to Berlin) and Glantz (p. 268 of the Kansas paperback edition of When Titans Clashed) both state the German counter-attack gained initial ground but was ultimately stopped and turned back by Soviet and Polish efforts -- pretty much agreeing with the Polish assertion that a victory (of sorts) for their forces occurred. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't a failed (turned back) counteroffensive be a defeat? Battle of Bzura comes to my mind, for example. Re your first point, I think we are quite close to being able to declare the battle as "both sides claimed victory", if only we can find a German speaker to verify the source added and convert the general reference into proper inline citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

re your question about counteroffensive/defeat, it (IMO) revolves around the duration of time that one considers. Beating up some of the 2nd Army units was a tactical victory, but if one looks at the whole length of the action, the Germans didn't accomplish anything that had any lasting impact on the Soviet/Polish forces involved. In the full time-duration of the battle, I agree with Erickson and Glantz; it is a Polish/Soviet victory, although one won at high cost. I'll look at the German official history and see what they have to say. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(back to left) From Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Volume 10/1, p. 649.

The southern group led another successful counterattack at Bautzen that mainly struck the Polish 2nd Army. It did not alter the outcome of Konev's offensive.

Translation is mine. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. So how would you suggest to change the result? Sources do note it was a victory... am I missing something? Perhaps we could add some note to the result, that would explain in more detail... what? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You still seem to insist that this operation was planned as a thrust right into Berlin. In fact it was a local counteroffensive with day to day planning to take all opportunites which may occur (again: this was only days before the complete collapse of the 3rd Reich and the end of the war). Ofc some commanders had some "unrealistic wishdreams" (original wordings by one of the German sources) to break into the Berlin (how could they break into Berlin if Berlin was about to surrender 4 days later anyway?) when the offensive met some success, but that was definitely not the goal of the operation. As furthest it was designed to distract Soviet forces from the Berlin area (Ahlfen p. 209), which failed. As i said above that battle had no strategic impact and led simply to the recapturing of some land. Thats all. I would propose to leave this "contradictory statements" out, as they arent really contradictory, they only operate on a different level (strategical vs tactical assessment of the battle). German historiography states that this battle had no strategic impact (= no impact on the Battle of Berlin) while i dont think that on a tactical lvl the Poles claim victory (as they suffered heavy casualties and lost Bautzen + surroundings). One of the polish sources linked even speaks of a "successful German counterofensive". So there isnt really a "contradiction". Some Sources of the Communist Peoples Republic of Poland certainly may assert that this was a "overall victory" because they "stopped" a non-existing thrust on Berlin, but this is hardly factual. StoneProphet (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather expand the article than see anything removed. Since I see you bring some sources I have no access to, how about you expand / change anything you want and than I can review the edits and more clearly see what is it that you wanted to do? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont want you to take anything out. I only argue because of this "statements were contradictory whatever", mainly in the result box, as this looks strange. I can add a sentence about the "German view" (in the historiography section) if you want. StoneProphet (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

German order of battle

Suggest the passage German forces were composed of elements of the remnants of Army Group Centre (in particular, elements of the 4th Panzer and 17th armies). For the battle, according to Polish general and military historian, Stanisław Komornicki, the Germans had two armoured divisions, a mechanized division and an infantry division. Wawer and Solak name more divisions (or their elements), including the 20th and 21st Panzer Divisions, 2nd and 10th SS Panzer Divisions, 1. Fallschirm-Panzer-Division "Hermann Göring", the 2. Fallschirm-Panzergrenadier-Division "Hermann Göring", the Panzergrenadier Division Brandenburg and the 600th Infantry Division (of the Russian Liberation Army) - around 50,000 men. be presented as:

German forces were composed of elements of the 4th Panzer Army and commanded by the headquarters for the Grossdeutschland and 57th Armoured Corps. For the battle, the Germans had two armoured divisions (the 20th and Hermann Goering Divisions), two mechanized divisions (the Brandenburg and Hermann Goering 2 Divisions), an infantry division (the 17th) as well as an infantry division battle group (the remnants of the 545th Volksgrenadier Division). This force counted some 50,000 soldiers, 300 tanks, and 600 guns. The supply train of the 10th SS Armoured Division was also present near Bautzen.

The reference for this description is Grzelak, p. 272. Note that the 17th Army was some 100 kilometers to the east of Bautzen -- not sure it was part of this battle at all. The reference for the presence of the 10th SS supply train is here - 10th SS sub-page at www.lexicon-der-wehrmacht.de. If we can settle on this description or something similar, then "note b" can be removed in its entirety. W. B. Wilson (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

By all means, please edit the article with improved information. But I think we should note the differing claims in the sources (Komornicki says A, Grzelak says B). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Insufficient references for note b

As noted in the milhist A-class review here, note b has insufficient references. Wilson, could you add them, as this is your note? Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Questionable photo caption

According at least to the German inscription on the monument depicted at the top of this article, it is a memorial not to the Polish and Russian soldiers who fell in battle, but specifically to 92 Polish and Russian citizens murdered at a specific location in the course of the battle -- one of the numerous war crimes carried out by both sides here. 50.137.239.197 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your translation is correct. I modified the photo caption. W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)