Talk:German WWII strongholds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We've discussed the Festung Warschau title, but there were actually two other fortresses that deserve the name Warsaw Fortress much more: the Cytadela (which is a fortress as such) and the line of forts surrounding the city (Fort Mokotowski, Fort Czerniaków, Fort Wola and so on). We could of course make the Fortress Warsaw a disambig and place there links to something like German Fortress Warsaw, Polish Fortress Warsaw and Russian Fortress Warsaw, but that sounds bizarre and nobody refers to them as such. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 06:52, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Hmmm...somehow this article's title sounds less than elegant. I propose moving it to "German late-war strongholds" or "German strongholds at the end of WW2" or something similar if nobody objects. -- Ferkelparade π 12:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Alright, since nobody voiced any objections for almost a month, I will now move the article to "German strongholds at the end of WW2" -- Ferkelparade π 13:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stalingrad

Stalingrad was not a late war stronghold and should be removed from this article. Andries 13:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not really, the title simply needs to be changed. When I created this article, I wanted to describe the phenomenon of German "no-step-back" policies during WWII, not just during the later stages of it. Apparently we couldn't come up with a better title, but all in all Stalingrad belongs here - after all it was the first "city-fortress" to be declared as such. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:31, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

In that case, why not simply call it "German strongholds in WW2" ? The scope of the article would get much larger, but tat wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing...I changed the title earlier today since "German end of WW2 strongholds" seemed to imply something like "over there to the left side is the German end of the strongholds, and there to the right you can see the Russian end". Or something similar. Ahem. :) -- Ferkelparade π 20:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I oppose such a broad title for this article. The Festung strategy was a deliberate, desperate but flawed strategy that Hitler made at the end of war and opposed by most generals of the Wehrmacht. The Stalingrad cauldron that was created by an unexpected Soviet offensive was not really part of this strategy that developed late in the war. Read e.g Anthony Beevor's book Battle of Berlin. Andries 20:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've read it and I actually liked it. Which doesn't change much nor does it explain anything. For me the "end of WWII" started with Stalingrad. Not because of the losses or the first major defeat of the Germans in the east, but because of the influence of Hitler on the command of the Wehrmacht. It was the first example of his "strategical genius" being turned into actual orders on such a scale and the very idea behind the creation of the Stalingrad pocket was the same as behind creation of the "festungen" in Breslau, Courland, Warsaw, Koenigsberg or any other place from the list. Also, the outcome was similar. Anyway, the sentence you erased was absolutely acceptable since it only stated simple facts:

1. Stalingrad was declared a festung
2. It fell
3. The fall of Stalingrad is seen as a major turning point in the war.

I will reinstate the erased sentence and simply move the article to German WWII strongholds. How about that? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:11, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Halibutt, Stalingrad was declared a Festung after it had been encircled, as a propaganda trick. It was not a real strategy that was planned in advance, like Breslau. That is a major difference. I continue to disagree with changing the title to the expand the subject. Andries 00:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, but the fact remains that the city was declared a festung, after the troops there were ordered not to withdraw a single step back and that the German propaganda underlined the heroism and importance of such senseless defence of completely unimportant pockets. And that's basically it.

Nobody here is arguing that other festungen had some military significance while Stalingrad had none. In fact, it was all about propaganda - which acted the same in the case of Stalingrad, Breslau or any other such surrounded pocket of resistance. The idea was started with Stalingrad, and later developed and eventually led to creation of several "well-prepared" festungen. However, there were also lots of un-prepared festungen created as well. The military part of the concept was a matter of secondary importance. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 00:38, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Halibutt, well I do not mind so much as long as the differences between the stongholds and encirclements are made clear to the readers. E.g. the context of Stalingrad, Courland, and Breslau were very different. Andries 18:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for Deletion or renaming for confining

Stalingrad and Breslau have nothing in common in military strategy and phase of the war. I do not think that this article has merit unless it confines itself to a certain type of strongholds i.e the ones in Pommern and Eastern Germany in 1945. Otherwise I think I will rais a VfD for this article. Andries 22:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)