Summary
American historian David Glantz considers that the offensive was more important in Stavka planning than the near-simultaneous Operation Uranus, and its minimisation into a mere holding attack supporting the Stalingrad operation was a propagandistic whitewash. He claims that the plan was to develop it into a breakout for Army Group Center's deep rear.
In this regard, it is interesting to compare the size of the Soviet forces committed to the two offensives:
Operation Mars: Initial forces 668,000 men and 2,000 tanks, plus 415,000 men and 1,265 tanks earmarked for the follow-up offensive Operation Jupiter (about 150,000 men and several hundred tanks were used to reinforce the unsuccessful Operation Mars).
Operation Uranus (initial Stalingrad offensive): 700,000 men and 1,400 tanks, plus 400,000 men and 1,200 tanks for the second part named Operation Saturn.
The losses (as stated below) also compare quite unfavorably with those suffered during the Stalingrad offensives: 155,000 killed/missing and 331,000 wounded over a period of almost two and a half months.
In the words of author David Glantz: "In the unlikely event that Zhukov was correct and Mars was really a diversion, there has never been one so ambitious, so large, so clumsily executed, or so costly".
British historian Antony Beevor disagrees with Glantz, citing that Zhukov spent less time planning Mars than Uranus, and that the artillery shell allocation was much smaller for Mars than for Uranus.
Read more about this topic: Operation Mars
Famous quotes containing the word summary:
“I have simplified my politics into an utter detestation of all existing governments; and, as it is the shortest and most agreeable and summary feeling imaginable, the first moment of an universal republic would convert me into an advocate for single and uncontradicted despotism. The fact is, riches are power, and poverty is slavery all over the earth, and one sort of establishment is no better, nor worse, for a people than another.”
—George Gordon Noel Byron (1788–1824)
“Product of a myriad various minds and contending tongues, compact of obscure and minute association, a language has its own abundant and often recondite laws, in the habitual and summary recognition of which scholarship consists.”
—Walter Pater (1839–1894)