Talk:Battle of Memel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

[edit] Klaipėda or Memel?

Per the discussion at Talk:Klaipėda Region#Memelland, this article raises the question of what Memel/Memelland should be called during the period 1939-1944/45. Nazi Germany's expansions/annexations from 1937 on are generally considered to be illegal and were officially reversed in various treaties and conferences towards the end of and after WWII. heqs 18:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Best to keep this discussion in one place: See Talk:Klaipėda Region#Memel Territory --Philip Baird Shearer 19:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

The heading Aftermath, makes absolutely no sense in the continuum of the article, as its written. It should be renamed or replaced, somewhere before the battle. Dr. Dan 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the first paragraph explains why the second paragraph happened. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Put back Aftermath, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Article structure. At the moment this article is a stub. It needs paragraphs on the Battle and then there will be more on the tactical situation after the battle. Three sentences on the strategic results of he battle are not out of place, it is just that at the moment because it is a stub they have a prominence that they would not have if the article had more text and it was not a stub. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This political "aftermath" has nothing to do with the Battle for the city, the whole content of this section is misplaced here. --Matthead 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to you POV, but to the victor the spoils --20:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)