User talk:Andreas1968

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi

I am a hobby historian with a strong interest in WW II eastern front and Normandy. I am sceptical about Wikipedia, but was convinced to give it a try, and I will see how it works out. I intend to participate in military history related projects on Wikipedia.

I am also able to contribute to energy-related matters (see e.g. MicroCHP)

I live in Paris use Macs and have no cats.

Andreas 09:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Deutsche Wikipedia

Hi bist du auch in der deutschen Wikipedia? wir könnten da noch Hilfen beim Ausbau des Normandiebereiches gebrauchen. Grüße, John N. 22:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Moin - hast Du einen Link dahin, oder habt Ihr etwas ähnliches wie das Military History Project? Andreas 19:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Imperialismus_und_Weltkriege -- John N. 14:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections

WikiProject Military history The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here.
The elections will run until February 5.

--Loopy e 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

I would like to thank you for your support for my candidacy for the Military history WikiProject coordinator position. I am now the Lead Coordinator, and I intend to do my best to continue improving the project. If you ever have any questions or concerns regarding my actions, or simply new ideas for the project, be sure to let me know! —Kirill Lokshin 00:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To add to the thanks of you, as the fellow who began the XII or 12th Armee discussion a while back (and soon realized I was out of my league, so dropped out of that), I just want to thank you for your labors with wikipedia.

Peace and have a good day, --Gbinal 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A W C

You might find these links of interest long and not very informative (but not the first see this one from Oct 2004) and this much more recent one. I hope it is now put to bed, follow the link on my talk page under the section Arb Com. to see what I mean. But I would not bet that it is the end. Regards P.

Thanks - I would not offer a bet that it is the end of it, but let's hope and see. Not a fun process to go through. All the best Andreas 14:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XX

Did you know that the committee that ran all the turned German agents in Britain was called the "20 commitee" which is of course double cross ;-)

Did not know that. Or rather, did not get it. Andreas 11:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as you like to use German name for "Armee" I use Roman Numerals for German units for the same reason. This is quite a common convention in English language books, eg look at this map This particualar map is taken from "Battle For Berlin: End Of The Third Reich" by Earl Ziemke --Philip Baird Shearer 11:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ziemke in the narrative of his books does not do this though, but uses Arabic numerals instead. At least in the two main works 'Moscow to Stalingrad' and 'Stalingrad to Berlin'. From a personal impression view, using Roman numerals really seems very very wrong to me, and I think that in a text where both Armeekorps and Armeen are mentioned, it does not help much with distinguishing.
He does throughout the text of his "Battle for Berlin" book, and as I said it is quite a common convention, but I would be the first to concede that it is only used in a minority of works.
But then again, I get upset if someone writes XLIX.Armeekorps instead of XXXXVIIII.Armeekorps (as the Wehrmacht did) too, so don't take me too serious. How Roman Numerals Work - just found this nice site Andreas 11:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the archived discussion on this. Andreas 11:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I was very glad when the the Year 2000 came as I can read the dates on BBC programmes without having to do mental gymnastics. There is one place were Roman Numeral do always differ from the norm which is the 4 on a clock face "IIII" to balance the 8 VIII.

We should continue this on the talk:Battle of Halbe page. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets talk it through first on the Battle of Halbe, as I do not want to spend a long time explaining to people that this is not a change to the naming conventions of Armies, Corps and Divisions, but is a convenience for clarity of which side is being talked about in paragraphs of a page. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for apologising, but I know that it is an easy mistake to make. I have made similar mistakes in the past. We are working constructively together, which is not as common as it ought to be on this project, so I look forward to continue working with you in the future. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Categorisation

The campaignbox templates (in this case, {{Campaignbox Axis-Soviet War}} don't update automatically; each battle must be added by hand. I've gone ahead and added Battle of Târgul Frumos; you might want to check the order, since I'm not really sure how some of the battles there overlap. Hope that helps! —Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work on that article! It looks much better now. --Candide, or Optimism 20:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I note that you've added several books to the references section of the Norwegian Campaign. I don't believe they were actually referred to, so they'd be better placed under a "Further reading" section. Oberiko 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Message by User Superpeng deleted because of factually incorrect claims. Andreas 21:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hello, didnt mean to make you feel insulted

Go here and tell me what you think Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed just make sure the last edit was made by me.

Also do you know what CMBB is? Because I think I know you from there but could be very wrong.

(Deng 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC))


The edits are good.(Deng 12:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC))


"build some consensus around this proposal"--> Fat chans ;) I can bet that it will never happen, but hey, one can allways hope ;)

(Deng 14:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC))


One thing you posted that the industrial numbers havent been varified but I have given 2 sources for them isnt that enough? (Deng 15:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC))


Actually I have 2 sources one is ofcurse Russia's War from 1997 by Overy the second is Campaigns of World War II : Day By Day" written by Chris Bishop and Chris Mcnab from 2000 (Deng 10:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC))


No one is going to accept my test page the thing is it is almost the same as it was when i made it just a few houers before the page got locked and if they couldnt accept it then well there is no way they are going to accept it now. It is all a trick to start a new edit war. The page was made by me and has just slightly changed since i first made it so I doubt people actually want to see it they just want to have the page unlocked so that they can put all the source-less facts into just like last time. (Deng 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Something for you...

I hereby present you with the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award for your contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of World War II. —Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I hereby present you with the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award for your contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of World War II. —Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Economy

Harrison's book has the answers to your questions, sorry but I dont have it. I read the book in the library.berndd--Woogie10w 13:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: So...

Sorry. Albrecht 16:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Glantz

I know his work is regarded as the definitive version of the events and no doubt, the work is remarkable. But let us still point out that he does not explain some facts contradicting the Soviet defence theory:

In particular, the incredible Soviet strength set opposite Romania in 1941 dwarfed not only any Romanian but also any German potential on that front. Stalin could have created better units for defense. He was not deployed for defense, as the ensuing debacle, and inspection of unit types, shows. (...) Glantz does not explain what the 9th independent army (present on his OB in something approximating the condition Suvorov alleges) was doing down there, or why they were the only "independent" Soviet army. Suvorov asks where these soldiers, especially in their frontier concentrations, were going to stay for the winter, or even train further for soldiering. What were they going to eat? Etc. This has been stated in a review of the book [1]

And note, that Stumbling Colussus (unlike Stalin's Missed Chance) is not an original research work (I conclude from what I've read about it, the book has been inaccessible for me) as most of [Glantz's] unique sources lie in "a category midway between what Westerners considered as primary and secondary source material," i.e. military journals, training materials and memoirs mostly published in periods of relative openness before or after Brezhnev (p.345). Most actual archives effectively remain closed. Thus (and Glantz does address this), this particular book is not a first-person archival exposition of the topic, but depends on works edited by Soviet officials. (op cit)

So, 'white spots' remain, and actually only Russian archives and research on these materials can bring forth the truth. --Constanz - Talk 10:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid ordering mr Glantz from Estonia is not the easiest thing to do. I'd note that I'm not a military history fan myself and I've been dealing with Suvorov and Meltyukhov just for the sake of opening discussion on the issue. I'd note that may-be surprisingly for Western citizens, but the theory of Stalin's assault plans has been accepted by the professional historians in my country (as shows my compatriot Marko Mihkelson's review of Meltyukhov's book [2])

And I would be grateful if you started the critics section for the Soviet plans article, that I'd like to create one day. --Constanz - Talk 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Krasny Bor

I see you put a lot of work into the article, and kudos for that. However, I'm not well versed in the WWII history, so I judge myself incompetent to assess their merit. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 16:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Photo

Of the communists, yest indeed they are seen as puppet forces as they were appointed by SU and controlled Polish miltiary together with Soviet officers.Also they arrived in Poland only in 1944, before they lived in Soviet Union, with some of them fighting against Poland on the side of Bolsheviks in Polish-Bolshevik war. Lastly they murdered Home Army soldiers. --Molobo 17:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006
Project news
From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals
  • Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy e 04:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy templates

Please note that the templates for Wikipedia policies will add the page to Category:Wikipedia_official_policy. You can still use the templates, but even {{subst:policyname}} will add the category links. You can remove them by using subst, saving the edit, and then manually removing [[Category:Wikipedia official policy|{{PAGENAME}}]] from the wikicode. Feezo (Talk) 00:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hello, the page has been unlocked

Hello I asked to get the pag unlocked and it has, just wanted to inform you (Deng 04:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Dnieper/Dnepr

Hi, the spelling in English should be Dnepr (for future reference. I have created a re-direct for the battle using that spelling, since I can't be bothered to fix all the links. :-) Great start for the article! Greetings from a fellow Parisian. Andreas 13:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well as you said, the article was requested quite some time ago under this spelling, so that's the explanation. What got me, too, was the fact that in Wiki it is also named Dnieper. Grafikm_fr 13:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Stalingrad

Battle of stalingrad needs your attention. The numbers get changed left and right. If you could find out the Soviet starter number and the axis starter number and then the total axis number and total soviet number that would be great all I know is that by late november both sides hade 1 million and 10k each Great Battles on the Eastern Front by Dupuy (Deng 02:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tank Corps (Soviet)

Hi there, Andreas! Just letting you know that I wrote the Pre-War section in the Tank Corps (Soviet) article of yours. Check it out and let me know what you think. KNewman 09:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Tatsinskaya Raid, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 07:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight

You supported Mobilization, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lokshin 23:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allow me

For contributing so many fine Great Patriotic War-related articles to wikipedia, I hereby award you the Order of Victory! Enjoy, abakharev
For contributing so many fine Great Patriotic War-related articles to wikipedia, I hereby award you the Order of Victory! Enjoy, abakharev

[edit] Re: Assessment of Milhist articles

Of course I don't mind. My task is to try to dispatch all unassessed articles to other places, and I don't claim my assessment is always 100% correct (except for workshop'd articles). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Battle of Smolensk

Thanks! :)

However, you're welcome to help. If you can get some nice pictures of German fortifications (anywhere on Eastern wall will do) and of tank attacks or something, please put them in the article! :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 11th Soviet Red Army

Hey Andreas, I noticed that you placed a tag on the 11th Soviet Red Army page as a stub for a World War II article. However, the 11th Army was involved in invading Caucaus during the Russian Revolution, not the second World War. I have however, written two articles on Soviet World War II divisions: the infantry division Soviet 89th "Tamanyan" Division and the Sassuntsi-Davit Tank Division. Cheers!--MarshallBagramyan 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Smolensk (1943)

Battle of Smolensk (1943) was nominated for FAC today. You're welcome to support it or to adress your criticisms... Thanks! :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dismissal of Bucknall and Erskine

Both officers were removed from command during Operation Bluecoat; however, you have reverted edits, with the comment that the reasons for their dismissal was not related to the operation.

From Chester Wilmot, The Struggle for Europe: "On the evening of August 1st ... neither 7th Armoured nor Fifty Div had made any appreciable progress towards their objectives, Aunay and Villers Bocage respectively. On the 2nd, after a stern warning from Dempsey to "get on or get out", Bucknall was dismissed and next day, when Aunay was still untaken, Erskine was removed from command of the Desert Rats."

It appears from this source, that "Bluecoat" must have provided at least part of the reason or pretext for the removal of these two officers. Can you give sources which give more complete details about these two command crises ? HLGallon 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 05:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Battle of Kharkov

Second Battle of Kharkov was nominated for FAC. You're welcome to support it or to comment on it. :)) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marshals of the Soviet Union

I put a lot of work into these articles and I resent having them classed as stubs, thanks very much. Adam 14:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Request for user block

He seems to have stopped at the moment. I've read him his rights, as it were; if he starts again, it's an indefinite block. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) @ 23:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mz Glantz, a fellow traveller of Walter Duranty

Review by Thomas Titura (from Austria):

“When Roosevelt initiated the formal recognition of the Soviet Union, Stalin was already standing knee-deep in the blood of his opponents, both imagined and real. But that doesn't bother Mrs. Glantz. The only important thing is that Stalin was opposed to Hitler. But stop! Stalin signed a pact and secret protocol with Hitler. Stalin also occupied Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, Bessarabia and smashed the Polish forces fleeing from Hitler's Wehrmacht. No problem, Stalin was only expanding his defensive perimeter...

Stalin attacked another small neighbour, Finland. Still, no problem for the author. But there was one problem: the young State Department officials who later served at the American Embassy in Moscow sided with the Baltic States and Finland (as did the majority of the Western populations at the time).[1] Glantz naturally does not excuse such a wrong policy, one has to look at the big picture: Stalin will be important in the future, so let him conquer any country he likes. The occupation of other countries by Stalin is always a defensive measure. Another issue: Mrs. Glantz writes about the NKVD terror in the occupied countries and in the Soviet Union itself. Does she call it terror, because sheer terror is what is was? No, she mostly refers to it as "NKVD action".[2] Walter Duranty would be proud of her.”

Moreover: “Can you believe it: Glantz really thinks that first class and unbiased information about the Red Army should be extracted from the heavily censored Soviet press under Stalin's rule! What an insane argument.In Glantz's view, the US had absolutely no right, to demand any kind of reciprocity for the massive aid it granted Stalin via lend-lease. [...] Not surprisingly, Glantz completely omits the large scale Soviet espionage effort against the US that already stared before the war. ” [3]

[edit] Refs

  1. ^ I.e initiated the policy of non-recognition (of occupation). Appearantly, M.Glantz regards this policy naive and ridiculous
  2. ^ writes so, comfortably forgetting that the Stalinist regime cost Russians, the Baltic states and Ukraine more lives than Hitler's

--Constanz - Talk 15:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight

You supported Military tactics, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Battle of Kursk

On the discussion page, you stated that you might give correct numbers for that battle of Kursk (depending on the definition). Is there a chance that you can do it? -- Zz 22:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Munich

I noticed you're a good German speaker. I'm wondering if you could help out at WikiProject Munich. Maybe you could help out with the project's Translation page. If you're interested, you can sign up here. Kingjeff 04:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rheinwiesenlager

Please could you control your comment on Rheinwiesenlager. I share your opignions about Baraque, but now his theories are reduced to the absolute encecopledic necessary minimum. Only your comment now brings these theories to the focus of interest. Because this does not seem to be your intention, I think you should think about removing them. I will not do so, because every word you wrote is true. So this should be your decision.Thw1309 11:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] xxx

Hallo, Andreas! Warum legen sie das alles in der deutschen Wiki nicht an? Ich wurde dort schon 2 Mal gesperrt als "Wahr" und "Papik". In 2-3 Tagen lege ich die Operation Kutusow an. --77.6.35.159 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)papik

[edit] Operation Barbarossa

Hi, This is just an invitation to get together at the Operation Barbarossa discussion page and see if the article can't be improved to the FA level. I am going to try and firstly restructure and later rewrite the article in my sandbox (firstly at home on my PC), but I have already discussed some ideas with one other contributor and would appreciate more input from members of the task force.--Mrg3105 (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Campaignbox Battle of Moscow

A tag has been placed on Template:Campaignbox Battle of Moscow requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)