User talk:Mrg3105/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Article outline 2 Eastern Front dealie 3 Soviet war crimes tribunals of 1946 4 Edit reversion 5 Soviet-German War 6 Myths and Realities 7 Kursk 8 Moving articles 9 Kharkov and article naming 10 Archiving 11 Operation Silver Fox 12 convert template and hyphen vs. dash 13 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008) 14 Narva map 15 Fronts of the Soviet Army 16 Military-Naval Fleet 17 My plans now 18 Kursk and the Ju 87G. 19 Battle of Moscow 19.1 Order of battle and casualty statistics in general 20 Google Earth 21 Military history WikiProject coordinator elections 22 FJR Hübner 23 British military history in the Second World War 24 131st Motor Rifle Brigade 25 Thank You 26 battle of Berlin 27 Battle of the Dukla Pass 28 Coordinator elections 29 Will you please stop breaking links! 30 Disputing titles of around 50-Romanian/Moldovan-related articles 31 WP:NCGN 32 Your recent edits 33 About your correction to my user page 34 re: Wehrmacht anyone? 35 Timing 36 Naming conventions (use English) 37 alphabets and scripts 38 E-mail 39 Russian flag anachronism 40 Victor Madej 41 270th MRD 42 INTP 43 Naming conventions revert 44 Sorry for the inconvenience! 45 Vietnam and TECHINT 46 diacritics again 47 Approach 48 Thank you 49 Thanks for your support

[edit] Article outline

Thanks for the outline, I'll try to follow it while I restructure the Narva article. Martintg (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Front dealie

Unfortunately, I seem to lack the time to contribute anything more demanding than a few comments and a few sources. For the Eastern Front, one of the very important, but frequently overlooked (by the "military heavy" minds) factors is the atrocities of the nazi regime. For instance, in 1941 alone around 10 million (not a round number, but a deficiency of statistics - ie the number could be +/- million or two) Soviet citizens were killed by the nazis in one way or another (including over 2 million POW's). Another aspect that seems to be frequently overlooked is fair attribution of roles - ie Stalin should be given his due as C&C, Zhukov's role shouldn't be blown out of proportion (he was arguable first, but definately among equals). As for military operations - ideally the Eastern Front article would include nothing more than summaries (along with links to detailed articles) of the multitude of operations - except, perhaps, a few pivotal ones - as well as supplementary political, economical and other info. Unfortunately, as of right now, there are many missing documents (as parts of the Soviet archives are still classified). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can contribute anything, it will be appreciated. By the way, you left out the 2.5 million Soviet citizens that died during their time in Germany as slave labour (aside from POWs)--mrg3105mrg3105 08:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Most deported slave laborers that lost their lives died after 1941. So their contribution to the 10 million (from Dyukov, can be found here http://militera.lib.ru/research/dukov_ar/index.html) is marginal. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

я не понял "marginal"--mrg3105mrg3105 06:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Суть в том, что среди ~10 миллионов погибших от рук нацистов в 1941-ом году, угнанные в Германию и погибшие там составляли очень и очень небольшую часть. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Я имел в виду за всю войну--mrg3105mrg3105 11:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above we might want to look at emphasising the role of the partisan formations (or at least providing a framework for people to contribute more detail) and of the under-emphasised complicity of the Wehrmacht in the repression (authors like Bartov and Gerlach have done useful work on the latter).Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this earlier. Yes you are right. There were at least three major German anti-partisan campaigns and at least two major Partisan campaigns against the Axis in the period 1942-44 on occupied USSR territory alone. I will be including these in the new Eastern Front structure along with the operations within these campaigns, and eventually battles--mrg3105mrg3105 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. On the German side I am certainly aware of Fruhlingsfest and Kormoran in the rear of Army Group Centre; there's plenty of documentation to work with. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you insert these German operations into the Army Group Centre page please.?--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 09:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, I'll just check the exact dates.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Have added three (significant) operations, from Gerlach.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet war crimes tribunals of 1946

In a related area, at some point I'm thinking of doing an article on the Soviet war crimes tribunals of 1946 - effectively the last act of the immediate Soviet-German conflict. I do not think there is any Wikipedia article on this subject at present (though as they're little known in the West, this is unsurprising).Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

These are the trials over collaborationists and those Soviet citizens accused of serving in the German Army?--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 09:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The trials of both collaborationists and of German military personnel. They're particularly interesting because they take a step further than Nuremberg in enforcing the idea of 'collective responsibility'. They often tend to be dismissed as simply 'show trials' by a lot of Western commentators, but they were in fact conducted in fairly strict accordance with Soviet law at the time.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This will not be easy. Most of the proceedings are still classified as far as I know and there is not much on them. They were not show trials, but were reported as such because the evidence was usually overwhelming and defence councils were Soviet military lawyers (and some civilians). I didn't know that there were any German prisoners in these since they were tried under separate law, and as enemy prisoners. The former Soviet citizens (their citizenship was formally revoked before they were charged) were mostly tried for treason and collaboration, and some for atrocities against civilian population. --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 09:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The information I have (not much, admittedly) states that the trials of both German military personnel and their accomplices - whether civilian or military - were conducted as a result of a decree of 19 April 1943, signed by the Presidium, stipulating either public execution or heavy prison sentences against both Axis personnel and collaborators found guilty of crimes against Soviet civilians and POWs. Defendants were charged with high treason under articles 58.1a (civilians) and 58.1b (military personnel) of the RSFSR criminal code. A lot of the information is still classified, but some is out there. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you that the military also used the field military code (have to check the article) to conduct field tribunals (polevoi tribunal) which usually resulted in immediate execution in cases where witnesses were available immediately. However this was restricted to uniformed prisoners, apparently including those wearing enemy uniforms but lacking insignia!--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 10:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - I'd not heard about those.

I think a lot of the perception of the tribunals as 'show trials' comes from the prominence given to defendants' confessions as evidence of guilt, but this is partly an artefact of the Soviet legal process, rather than any indication the evidence was false. As you point out, there were plenty of witnesses (including cooperative POWs) and little indication that the defendants were confessing to crimes they had not committed, especially as the notion of 'responsibility' was (as I have said) taken in a broader sense than the Nuremberg trials allowed (entirely understandable given what was done in the occupied Soviet territories).Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Far be it for me to point out the logical, but a confession is a part of the investigation process. The investigator presents evidence and the accused has the option to confess or not. Works pretty much the same way everywhere. The only issue is that the Soviet system required the accused to repeat the confession in the court. Of course the NKVD had lots of experience in getting confessions out of people, but in the vast majority of these cases they had no need to do so. --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 11:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, exactly. The requirement for a repetition of the confession in public has enabled the few Western reports to label the crimes 'show trials', because the latter (after reporting of the original political 'show trials') were associated with lengthy public confessions. But of course, as you say, confessions are an integral part of the legal process (and in any case the confessions in the 1946/7 war crimes trials were overwhelmingly true). It's just another interesting example of the way the existing presentation of the conflict has been shaped by an anti-soviet perspective. One reason why a fair article would go some way towards redressing the balance!Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It does indeed sound like an interesting project. However, I have committed myself tot he articles on the operations, and it is likely to take a long time to complete this. I'll help where I can, but it would have to be a secondary priority for me. However, in the course of writing up the operations I am in no doubt that related material will come across my desk.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 12:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit reversion

I reverted because you moved the "Liberation of Western Europe" from the section detailing Germany vs. the Western Allies to the section covering the Soviet-German War. Oberiko (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with moving sections around (I'm actually rewriting the entire thing at World War II/temp), but bring it up on the discussion page first. Oberiko (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, your effort is to be commended! However, Are your going to have a major section for Progress of the war? It seems that subsections in /temp are under Causes of war. I'll bring up the section move in talk. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The title is course of the war though. Any feedback is appreciated as well. Oberiko (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I shoudl wait until you have finished your editing and then make suggestions :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet-German War

I strongly suggest you base your revisions off of the structure presented here. It is a fairly common, and, IMO, highly sensible way of organizing the Soviet-German War. Oberiko (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be impossible as I'm sure Glantz would agree. The problem is that while Soviet military historians have built up a fairly well structured history of the war (which Glantz has used since at least 1985), there is no such structure in the German history of the war. For this reason it is difficult to correlate the events of the two sides into a single coherent structure. If you have read the Art of War symposiums, you will have recognised this in the comments of the German officers present there. What I do not want is to have an article that seems entirely structured from Soviet POV even if it is the more convenient one to use.--mrg3105mrg3105 02:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually haven't read anything regarding the German structure of the war, as I tend to spend most my time in the Mediterranean theatre of operations. What are the key differences between them? Oberiko (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to contact Glantz on the subject, but the basic problem is this. During the war OKH planning quickly broke down after a few months of Barbarossa due to Hitler. Even during Barbarossa the actions of the three main strategic Army Groups became separate campaigns. Russians called them "lebed', rak and schuka" (swan, crayfish and pike) after the folk tale. The 'swan' AG North became bogged down in the Siege of Leningrad, the 'crayfish AG Centre tried to find a way to outflank and besiege Moscow, and the 'pike' AG South aimlessly plowed on into Caucasus. After the decision was taken to go for Caucasus the Theatre devolved into a series of 'battles' with notable exceptions of the Typhoon and Citadel. Most of the German post war history was written by lower-echelon officers who had more of the operational and tactical perspectives which is the reason for some 'battles' being better known in English then others. For example the strategic campaigns by all three AGs during 1943 on the Wotan Line are not described as such, but as individual, sometimes divisional actions, and the Wotan-Panther Line is only presented in Wikipedia as a defensive line. However of course for every Soviet campaign and strategic offensive there was a German opposite reaction of the same magnitude (and visa versa), and this is what I would like to depict by reconstructing in a way the theatre and campaign, and strategic operations structure of the war. In this case the section titles may be somewhat OR because I don't know if the OKH ever had strategic campaign names. The convention for Wehrmacht is to describe operations in terms of major city region (from Hitler's mania for occupying large cities), i.e. Battle of Kharkov, which in fact encompassed huge forces and spanned over a hundred kilometers of front or more (depending on the POV) and was clearly quite a bit more then a 'battle'. The largest of these was of course Kursk, but which was not a 'battle' by any means. This is most unhelpful because the tendency is to describe operations centred on the city of the name and ignore everything that gave it the operational and strategic context. The consequences of this are that one reads much about German panzer divisions and almost nothing about the infantry and artillery, etc.--mrg3105mrg3105 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

David Glantz is contactable at rzhev@aol.com. I believe he's back from holiday. My last exchanges with him (see 58th Army) were last year, but if you don't waste his time too much he seems happy to help. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I emailed him a couple of years ago on that address and received no reply, but will try again.--mrg3105mrg3105 07:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Received reply from Mr.Glantz below:

• Your approach sounds entirely sensible. Should you need a list of the battles and operations from the Soviet perspective, including those I call "forgotten," I would recommend my short piece (100 pages), entitled The Soviet-German War: Myths and Realities, which lists all of them.

All the best, David

Of course, as mentioned in earlier discussions, further problems of structure are created by the fact that after Operation Citadel - the offensive usually known as the Battle of Kursk - the Wehrmacht completely lost the strategic initiative; its planning was esentially reactive, compounded by the removal of senior commanders for 'defeatism'. From the German side, the conflict quickly deteriorated into a series of holding actions, headlong retreats or doomed, static defenses of 'fortress cities'. As you mention, the fact that historiography has been influenced by the memoirs of mid- or lower-level commanders (typically from Panzer units) who naturally emphasise any locally succesful actions, has destroyed any remaining sense of an overall strategy.

It could be argued that as the Red Army effectively dictated the structure of the conflict after Kursk through the planning of its strategic offensives, its structure is the most obvious one to use after that point. As the majority of German actions are purely reactive or defensive, they can be described under the articles on Soviet offensives (in sub-articles if necessary, for example for sieges of particular cities).Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is true, but in my humble opinion only to a degree. Although initiative was largely lost at strategic level, and even at operational, staffs continued to function. Although Hitler intervened, and removed COs, staffs continued to function. Even though units and formations fell apart and withdrawals turned into routs, staffs functioned. Hitler knew this about the German Staff. The one thing that the Red Army never was able to crack was the Wehrmacht Staff system which functioned even well enough to assist in processing its own units into captivity and then some. So, for the purpose of higher echelon functionality it is possible to recreate a German strategic structure of the Eastern Front. Its a bit like forensic archeology. Once the structure of the long-demolished building is uncovered, and its basic 3D shape is realised, its not too hard to 'hang' the disparate "battles and operations" on it, and then fill in the blanks. This may be the most non-OR OR project in Wikipedia :o) Have a look at the initial version of Army Group North--mrg3105mrg3105 11:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. So what you're envisaging is that a strategic coherency as regards the German side of the conflict can be reconstructed by tracing the campaign history of the Army Groups (and beneath them, the individual Armies).Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, also using the Soviet operations. Its a bit simplistic I know, but the old law holds that for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction :o), and we are dealing with masses and forces, momentums, times of execution, distances and units (even if military). The actions had a 'flow' (ebb and flow), and flows also obey fluid mechanics. Not that I need to get very scientific, but the situation does not seem hopeless from where I'm looking at it. --mrg3105mrg3105 12:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it need to be so specific for the article itself? IMO, you're best bet would be to start off by breaking it down into 5-7 major phases (see here for why) and going from there. Things like the differences you present in how Barbarossa is broken down can be explained within the Barbarossa article instead; at the high level, only major actions need to be recorded, not so much how they occurred or the planning behind them.

My suggested skeleton would be:

• German invasion: Operation Barbarossa
• First Soviet winter counter offensive
• The second German offensive
• Second Soviet winter counter offensive
• The Battle of Kursk
• Soviet push to Germany (probably should be two sections, but I don't know where they'd be cleanly segmented)

I think everyone can more or less agree that those represent the "major" phases of the Soviet-German War. Oberiko (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this is that Barbarossa ended when the 2nd Panzer Group turned south, and when Leningrad was besieged. I will use the Soviet operational nameswhere they apply, but the Battle of Kursk will have to go because it had a German operation name, which is the convention to use for an article name. People will stil find it because I will say that in the article that "Batle of Kursk" is an often used, if incorrect name for it. There will be a redirect. However, which of the eight operations (or more) does "Battle of Kursk" describe? Most think its all about Prokhorovka anyway.

If it will help you, campaigns are seasonal affairs because they usually take about 3 months to play out (at least). However, not every season has a campaign in every strategic Wehrmacht direction (there were four counting Finland).

I will stick to geographic regions and major city name use convention used by OKH rather then using numerical titles. I find them more descriptive.--mrg3105mrg3105 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you've identified another one of the fundamental issues above: very few of the major (strategic-level) German plans actually achieved their strategic objectives, and tended to end up in a succession of battles or sieges that were not originally planned for. Barbarossa failed to take Moscow or Leningrad, Fall Blue failed to reach the Caucasian oilfields, and Operation Citadel failed to eliminate the Kursk salient. This has had a bearing on the way the events have been represented in the historical narrative too.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, and I am not going to 'pretty' it up, but it needs to be contextualised. Otherwise what you end up with is a series of German tactical victories by the uber-panzertruppen, and then surrender in May 1945. This is why German sources make so much of the tactical and the few operational successes. It will take a while. I'm not proposing to write a book here, but I would liek to give a better then average understanding to the reader why good plans fail :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 13:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, quite. It's a sad fact that the 'Western' historiography has tended to emphasise the tactical skills of the commanders of German motorised formations (highly unrepresentative of an army largely reliant on horse and foot power) as well as painting a false picture of the Wehrmacht as a largely honourable organisation that was led astray by poor orders and 'criminal' politicians, rather than an organisation with the blood of many thousands of civilians on its hands. But I guess we have post-war politics to blame for that :) Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The emphasis on tactical skill evolved in the west because the higher echelon officers were on trial at Nuremberg, and mostly in jail later, and many surviving officers of lower rank felt the Allies had to be convinced that Soviet Union had to be countered (which was probably true). However how they went about doing this is interesting. These were people incapable of understanding the command culture differences of the British-American forces vs the Wehrmacht. They did however understand how to push the right 'buttons' with the British and Americans. Effects of occupation is already covered elsewhere, but eventually it will also be included in the operations. First things first though :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 20:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myths and Realities

I'm most interested in the EAstern Front, and the primary reason I want that document is the listing of operations - I suppose you don't have one coherent list of them all somewhere in another source. The other theatres right now are of minor interest only. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I only have the list of Soviet operations (strategic and strategic-operational) which I have not finished fixing for English yet, and in fact I'm still verifying the English usage names in the Britannica 1980 atlas for some because of name changes since 1989.

The document David Glantz mentioned is the same one Nick pointed to I believe (just the name is somewhat different in his reply to me). I have that converted to a Word doc (became 115 pages) also if you want it. The problem with it is that some of the forgotten operations are actually tactical studies and some IMHO are given a name by David as best way to describe events that he connected together from Soviet sources. I have not gone to that level (Corps) of operating structure as yet (strategic big enough job). Now working on sorting out German structure, and then will connect the two structures. As you see I'm doing the German structure in the AG articles, and the one in the South is a bit complex. In actuality, looking over David's published bibliography, there are not a lot of operations he has not dealt with, although maybe in passing. It would be virtually impossible to cover everything in the detail it was afforded by the Soviet military historians over the decades since the end of the Second World War, and since 1990s.--mrg3105mrg3105 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. The only three sources in Russian I know of (other then the websites) that contain all the operations are the two encyclopaedic dictionaries (Great Patriotic War and Military Encyclopaedic) and of course the Soviet Military Encyclopaedia.

For the 'Liuban operation, which led to the virtual destruction of 2nd Shock Army and the capture of Vlasov, I was intending to put any initial info into the 2 Shock Army article, pending the creation of a real article. Have you got any other better places for it, and what do you think the best exact name for an article on that op would be? Actually, another thought, why don't you flip me the list of Soviet operations and mark a chunk I can work on, while you work on the rest? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to eventually cover Liuban (Liuban-Chud) within the scope of the the Siege of Leningrad article where as you have seen I have tried to incorporate the basic military aspects of the siege in the later attempts to lift the siege section. The only 'chunk' you would have is Любанская наступательная Luban’ offensive operation 07.01-30.04.42 ВxФ - 2УА, 4, 52, 59А, 13кк, 4, 6 гв.ск; 54А ЛФ since the operation is disconnected from any larger strategic operation outside of the siege. Vlasov of course only arrived with Voroshilov on the 9 March half-way through the operation. If you want the rest of the list I can email it to you--mrg3105mrg3105 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why Chud? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes Chudovo, good pickup--mrg3105mrg3105 01:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kursk

Although "Battle of Kursk" (and even "for Kursk" by Orenstein!) is used by some respected historians (as does Glantz, but not during his US Army days) as a book title, it is still ambiguous. Consider the style guide recommendation that "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name, for all but the most well-known operations (such as Operation Barbarossa)" However, the Battle of Kursk does no more then the Citadel (which is also well known)! Consider that no combat took place in or around Kursk during this "battle". It does not describe where the action took place (in two distinct directions), and it does not represent either side's planning; two German AGs and three Soviet Fronts! It particularly misrepresents the massive defensive lines which were for the most part well outside of the Kursk, and the massive air battle that took place over the sectors of German offensives which were definitely not around Kursk. Using Battle of Kursk is therefore just wrong. In fact although the Wehrmacht name for it is Operation Cittadel, the Russian name for it is Kurskaya duga, which is the Kursk Bulge. However this name is hardly ever used although on the Western front the Battle of Bulge is used all the time although it is neither the name of the German operation or a geographical name, or represents either side's planning! The Kursk Battle (1943) is only used in Soviet historiography to describe the defensive phase of the operations, with the offensive phases being named the Orel and Belgorod-Kharkov offensive operations. As an encyclopedic entry, the article title need not be chosen by the published because it will sell the book, and has to reflect actual name of the event. At no time during the war were the operations that took place on the Kursk bulge known as the "Battle of Kursk". Besides, what are my to use for the operation that actually did result in the liberation of Kursk which was a battle for Kursk in the most literal sense? What about the battles of Kursk (area) in 1941? I really dislike using numerals such as 1st battle of Kharkov, or brackets Battle of Kursk (1941). --mrg3105mrg3105 20:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My preference would still be for Operation Citadel (Battle of Kursk redirecting there, for those readers who'll be searching under that term. and the Soviet defensive operations included in the article), with the Orel Offensive Operation and Belogorod-Kharkov Offensive Operations as following, and everything listed as something like "Operations on the Kursk-Kharkov axis 1943" in the main structure. But that's just my preference:) Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and further to your earlier points about the historiography, it didn't help matters that many of the senior German commanders (e.g. Raus of Third Panzer Army) who got around to writing their memoirs were all too quick to present themselves as tactical genuises who might have won the war were it not for 'political' interference; and Western historiography, for the most part, tended to go along with them for thirty years or so. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This goes back to lack of understanding in the West of the relationships between tactical, operational and strategic scopes of execution. Many (most!) German published works on the Second World War mostly deal with the tactical and more rarely the operational aspects, though still from a tactical perspective. I believe, (admittedly an unproven thesis) that this is because Germans found this to be the area of interest demanded by the Western Allies. It seems to me that this reflects the Allied experience in the West where much of the combat was tactical and on a rare occasion operations, but where strategic initiative, once ceased in Normandy, was never lost (even in Ardennes), so until early 80s there was not really much discussion by military historians of the issue of Red Army's ceasure of strategic initiative. That aspect was always off-handedly relegated to "Hitler did it" argument. The truth however is somewhat more complicated then that. Unfortunately this will not be reflected in the Wikipedia articles because it is not intended to provide information to that depth of analysis

I think the German offensive should be called Operation Citadel because the Kursk Bulge (which is what it was called when not using the operational name) is not well known, and will not describe where the action took place anyway. --mrg3105mrg3105 20:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

the Battle of Kursk will have to go because it had a German operation name, which is the convention to use for an article name. -- Actually, the convention is to avoid operational names where possible. The only times when operational codenames are (suppossed to be) used is when they are the most well-known name for an event, or when doing so prevents ambiguity.

You could use this to assist in the creation of the phases of the war: i.e., the invasion doesn't have to strictly be actions taken within Barbarossa. You could call the lead section German invasion of the Soviet Union and thus include things outside of Barbarossa (such as the local Soviet counter-attacks) until the next major phase. Oberiko (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I will include local counter-attacks within the scope of Barbarossa. However there were few counter-offensives prominent enough to warrant their own sections before Barbarossa ended.

Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye, but the same logic applies elsewhere. For example, on the Soviet-German War page, I've outlined a proposition framework. For something like "The third German offensive and the Soviet counter-offensive (4 Jul 1943 - 21 Jun 1944)" (better name needed...) we could include, at a summary level, all actions taken between (or roughly corresponding to) those dates, including Kursk and the Soviet counter-attack (which do not cleanly segregate).

I wouldn't worry so much about what can be officially included or recognized, every historian has their own slight twist on things. Remember, our target audience is the general public, not academics; so long as what is presented is accurate, written well and fits well with other articles to make a coherent whole, it's fine. Oberiko (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case I would worry about what is officially included. Eastern Front, even from the start, was not a jumble of disconnected events. Only the historians who did not understand the process of military campaign planning could write in this way. I remember very well who the target audience is. This makes it harder because an academic is likely to ask more questions.

The last points you bring are the most important but rarely observed I find: accuracy, expression and overall coherence.

• Accuracy means that every statement which can have a question attached to it (i.e. why, where, how) should be referenced to a source at lest once in the article.
• Expression needs to be simple English, but using appropriate terms which themselves need to be either in Wikipedia where they represent concepts outside of normal usage, or in Wikidictionary.
• Coherency is essential because it allows the reader to contextualise the article content. I am currently working on the southern campaigns of the Eastern Front, and even though I know what happened, I am unable to follow the German campaigns through to 1943 from Wikipedia articles alone. This means that the articles were written without coordination, and remain so. There was no forethought given to how the information would be structured in terms of the larger (global) context. It is somewhat like organising a party by hoping that the invited guests will bring all the food and drinks on their own inspiration, including that some will bring first course, some the second course and some deserts. One should not be disappointed if everyone brings chips and Coke.

The Eastern Front article needs to be rewritten. Before it is rewritten, it needs to be restructured. Everything in this World has structure, and it usually comes first. I don't have this finalised yet because it has to include German and Soviet structures, and these will clash as they did necessarily since it was a conflict. I am still working on this and not prepared to commit to anything now until I see the full picture.--mrg3105mrg3105 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving articles

If you're moving articles, please make sure you're actually moving the article rather than moving its talk page into article space. Thanks! Kirill 13:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And, on a related (but possibly less relevant, to you) note, A-Class articles need to go through an A-Class review if you think they need to be downgraded. Kirill 13:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake there, but that was fixed I believe (now I see you fixed it again, so obviously I didn't; thank you). I have no idea how to go through the A-Class review. Honestly, I have no idea how the article was rated A in the first place. At least a third of the content is irrelevant. --mrg3105mrg3105 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kharkov and article naming

Hi Mrg. We talked by email earlier about the subject of renaming articles, and you'd mentioned or I'd seen this use of the word 'Struggle' in naming battles. I think I gave you my opinion to raise it at the talk page first, and then if nobody objected, just go ahead. If you had raised it at the talk page first, I would have objected, because 'Struggle' in the sense of naming engagements is not accepted English etymology - word usage/derivation - for combat actions. In this particular case, given the record of the German historians writing on the Eastern Front, and the well-accepted usage of 'X Offensive Operation', I believe an acceptable compromise might have been 'First Battle of Kharkov,' 'Second Battle of Kharkov', and 'Kharkov Offensive Operation'. Anyway, the point is that if you'd raised this on the talk page this would have all come out.

So, what I'd ask is this: please if you're thinking of renaming articles to 'Struggle for X,' please raise it on the talk page or the WP:MILHIST Russian & WW2 TFs for 24-48 hours before you go ahead and change the name of an engagement away from accepted English word usage. You can see an example of me doing the same thing at the 'Need help' section discussing 'Operation Pokeweed' at the main talk page at the moment. Sound reasonably fair? Best regards from over the ditch, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I matter of fact I had not seen your discussion of 'Operation Pokeweed'.

There is no accepted English usage of this operation, and it was an operation and not a battle. It seems that English word usage is limited to 'battle' since everything from million-strong strategic operations to engagements by a few battalions is so called in Wikipedia. I really saw myself as doing the editors a favour by expanding their vocabulary. Wikipedia is intended to broaden people's minds, not dumb them down. Etymology is the study of the origin of words. It is however a completely contrived exercise based on false assumptions due to insufficient evidence being available to the mid-19th century linguists. I expect it will eventually be debunked as most 19th century theories have over time.

In fact the usage of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, 'battles' came from the post-war Germans who wrote without access to appropriate documents, and who are incoherent on the subject. Consider this from Werner Haupt "On 30 May 942, the Wehrmacht High Command reported: "We have been informed by a special report that the battle for Kharkov has ended." (pp. 141-143, Army Group South). Not only is the report not referenced, or its sender unquoted, or the receiver, there is no mention of this 'battle', involving four Wehrmacht Corps, being numbered at all. Not only that, but this is the only mention of Kharkov in the structure of the book although it purports to be "Wehrmacht in Russia:1941-1945", but actually ends in 1944. Now, if the author can't get the title right, what should I expect from the contents? This means that the other four (by my count; for a total of five) operations that took place in and around Kharkov are not worthy of mention, including the final loss of Kharkov by the Wehrmacht?

Most German works on the Eastern Front by standards of historical writing accepted in most English language academic assessment are sub-standard. This is to say nothing of military historian writing which demands a more pedantic approach to information. They fail in so many ways that I will not begin to discuss this here. Nor is there any reason to discuss acceptance of popularised names of Eastern Front events derived from translations of these works. Largely for one reason that I decided not to mention, because it seemed obvious to me, that a sequential numbering of anything suggests a logical relationship. There was however no logical relationship between these events other then the fact that in the area was a city named Kharkov. Ultimately they are all united by being in the same war, but every time entirely different planning considerations, strategic and operational circumstances, forces and command echelons were involved. If I was an uninformed reader, the first question I would have asked is, how was number 1 'battle' connected to number 2 'battle'. The answer, given in number 3 'battle' was so convoluted that even I could not follow it because it omitted almost completely the actions of the Red Army to which the Wehrmacht was reacting (the Izum breakthrough). This is besides the constant use of 'Russians' that may have misled the reader into thinking this was a discussion of the First World War after all.

Discussion are great for working out issues about which the author or editor is unsure. I am absolutely sure that use of numbered events is ahistorical, unrepresentative of either side's contemporary naming, counter-intuitive and counter-logical, and fails the better standards of history as a discipline, and is not English standard usage. However, if the above are not within Wikipedia 'standards', and I have a reason to believe this because one article was rated A, then as I had mentioned to Kirill, it seems to me that the standards are somewhat less then exacting. In this case GIGO would apply.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very well aware that the usage of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc came from the Germans writing after the war. However, that has been the standard English naming of the events, and is also used in reference to other battles in other wars. Nowhere, however, in any english-language discussion of military history have I seen a engagement labelled a 'struggle'. It simply isn't used. Please, as I said, warn people on talk pages before you consider renaming such things - well in advance - or, better still, thrash it out by asking for comments on the main talk page, and get the issue out of the way. On a related matter, there are epic battles in the liberation of the western (left-bank) Ukraine in 1944 especially (and many several other operations) crying out for articles to fix the gaps. Have you thought of starting a new article on that? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

English usage has been dominated by translations of German non-standard/ahistorical usage. Do you suggest that perpetuation of something that is in error should continue because there are no alternatives? Struggle exactly describes what occurred in this case, which was a series of attack sand counter-attacks, envelopments, and breakouts from them. Even in English there is no better way to describe what happened in those couple of weeks. Germans claim to have taken over 240,000 prisoners, so it was likely to be a bit more then a 'battle'. I have had this discussion with a German officer (current, and admittedly only a lieutenant), but even in current German there are more then one word to describe different scales of combat. I'll be happy to share that with you. I had the same conversation with a French military historian (lectures at university), and received the same answer. Many English works on the Eastern Front are rewritten and re-edited 1950s-60s German translations. Do you have any original German to English translations from those years. They are so poorly edited it is just unbelievable they ever had an editor at all. Most are not historical works that would get published today without substantial editing. Most lack nay references and are written from memory without the assistance of cohesive research. Many used Allied declassified sources, but not original documents. Use of Soviet and Russians were ok in the 50s and 60s as was First Battle of Kharkov as if anyone was going to quibble over what the hell that really meant while Khrushchev and Kennedy were debating over blowing up the World. To put the matter bluntly, these works are not to be regarded as reliable sources. The late Brigadier Simpkin, who knew a few of these authors and translated from German himself, has said so in one of his books in discussion of German terminology by English-speaking officers. However, I'll make you a deal. You find a source for the usage of numerically sequenced 'battles' of Kharkov from Wehrmacht sources, and you are welcome to rename the articles. Glantz uses "Kharkov, May 1942", but I don't see a need. If words like 'pocket' and 'cauldron' can be used, why not 'struggle'. It is as good a literary usage as any. And BTW, this is not OR. I am simply fixing the case where OR was neglected in the first place by the source author.

I disagree. Many battles in other wars are quite happily called 'First Battle of X', 'Second Battle of X' etc. Just because that's the first given, and German, label doesn't make it wrong. However, not something to get terribly excited about. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware that there are many events which are not well covered or not at all in Eastern Front. However, I only devoted time to Kharkov articles because of the AG South article I am working on which is somewhat more complex then the North and Centre. As I have explained to another correspondent here, my approach is more akin to the architect, or a painter. Firs the general structure of the design is completed and tested for cohesiveness (foundation, beams and . Then the greater structural detail is added. Internal decoration comes much later. It is my belief that the entire Eastern Front series of articles was 'built' without a 'slab' being put down first. This stage "After clearing the site, wooden concrete forms are constructed and fill dirt is placed in the forms. Foundation beams are excavated and plastic vapor barrier is installed. Steel reinforcing bars and post-tensioned steel cables are placed in the foundation. Drain pipes and water supply pipes are installed as well as electrical grounding wires. " was entirely neglected. There is no framework for the whole. If I was getting paid for this, I would delete almost all the articles and start afresh because it is much cheaper to build a good building then to fix one that was originally build to bad standards. However, I am trying to do the most with the limited time I have. Since 'interior decoration' is something most editors attempt all the time, I am going to leave that for last and concentrate of something no one has done in the years the Eastern Front has been covered in Wikipedia, erect a project framework. I will try and fix the more obvious flaws as I see them when I see them from time to time, but I will spend less time on this then I would like to. Kharkov articles were just too obviously in need of attention, as was Leningrad, and for that matter others also as you said, but I can do only so much, and there are not a lot of active participants.

I disagree with your approach as well, but again, not something to get terribly excited about. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You will note that I do not call myself Wikipedian as so may proudly do. So far as I'm concerned a Wikipedia is just someone with access to the Internet and way too much time on their hands. Anyone who authors and edits must have expert knowledge in the matter, and therefore must have some shred of professional integrity [[1]] not to misinform. I note that there is no WP policy for professional integrity.--mrg3105mrg3105 23:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How many contributors would we recruit, lose, and retain, if we did? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Many battles in other wars are quite happily called 'First Battle of X', 'Second Battle of X' etc. Just because that's the first given, and German, label doesn't make it wrong. However, not something to get terribly excited about. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC) I disagree with your approach as well, but again, not something to get terribly excited about. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC) How many contributors would we recruit, lose, and retain, if we did? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a good reason that these "many" battles are limited to the American Civil War and the First World War. They were predominantly fought by the same forces for the same objectives. They had operational continuity.

Your disagreement is noted, and is easily scientifically tested. In fact you can do so yourself inexpensively. Start building a dolls house by arranging the furniture and decorations before building the beams and walls of the house.

Well, the other question is, would a thousand monkeys typing for a thousand years eventually produce Hamlet? Of curse I know I am fighting a loosing battle since the adage that "bigger battalions win" will hold as well in Wikipedia as they did on the Eastern Front. Still, I would like to believe that there is something to professionalism. (I do believe in going out fighting, but surviving to fight another day) The ADF believes so, and chooses their conscripts carefully, despite the 'drought'). Lets not forget that the objective (something often lacking in the articles) is not to recruit editors, but to produce good articles. The willing may not always be able :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that there needs to be a separate article that introduces all the events that took place around Kharkov in 1941-1943.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 09:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Are you aware the standard place for your archive would be User talk:Mrg3105/Archive 1, like mine at User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 1, rather than the appearing-half-finshed User talk:/Archive 1. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Silver Fox

In reply to your message, I’ve been doing some editing to this page, and to the ones related to it; I was passing through and thought they needed tidying up a bit. (I was following a link from the Continuation War article.)
The more I read it, the more irritated I get; I’m thinking of taking a large carving knife to it.
As a matter of interest, why will it need moving?
Xyl 54 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the operation should be either known by its German name (see discussion in the MilHist talk) or by some geographic region of the campaign. There never was "Operation Silver Fox" in English. The translation follows in the article of course. Please edit carefully. If you need help with the Soviet side, I can help somewhat. I'm working on the Eastern Front as a whole, and have developed a consistent structure for articles you may be interested in. The intent is to help writers/editors focus on the sections and not go all over the place in the article.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 12:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

regarding: proposed Eastern Front article structure:

Caramba!

I hadn’t thought to do anything like that! But I’ll give it a go; I’m all in favour of consistency in pages with the same subject. Thanks!

Xyl 54 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the correct expression is ¡Ay, caramba! :o)

You are not obligated to follow the structure, however the sections are there because of the questions a potential reader may ask when reading the article. Even if a single sentence is used to address the section, it still adds to the completeness of the content and may give future editors something to 'hang' their information on. Thank you for your contributions--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] convert template and hyphen vs. dash

In this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&diff=187665456&oldid=187659587, you added some {{convert}} templates. When you specified the precision, you put in a "figure dash" (UTF-8 E2 80 92) rather than the expected hyphen for the "negative two" value, which causes the convert template to generate a big red error message. WWII has since been corrected, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention as it might be something about the way your keyboard is mapped and cause further problems when inputting negative numbers to math functions. --J Clear (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but I didn't insert the templates originally and had not reason to temper with them. --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Narva map

The basic map with coastlines and elevations was made with MapCreator software (see the image page for a link to the firm that makes the software). I had to touch it up to remove the manmade lake added in the 1950s, add towns, battlefield locations, and the swamps. The nice thing about MapCreator is that its products can be freely used without a license. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I really like that there is a map, and that it is made with a tool that can be used on all other maps. It seems to me though that the swamps extended into the area of lowland that was flooded in the 50s. Also there was a railroad from Leningrad running through Slantsy to Pskov. It seemed to me that Slantsy therefore became the staging area for the local attack in the south to cross Narva. This is because there was a rail bridge crossing over the Plussa, with somewhat firmer ground between Plussa and Narva which allowed movement of tanks. The amphibious landing and the attacks in the immediate area of the Narva city were just faints to cover the primary direction of the offensive to the south. See maps here [2] Narva is this one Нарва, Кингисепп - карта 1942 г. 666 КБ, The problem with the place where you indicated the assaults in the south is that the lowlands would have been near impossible to cross in winter since the snow that collected there, and the frozen over swamps would have made movement impossible even for the infantry, never mind vehicles. --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 05:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot that can be done with the map. The place I indicated the assaults in the south was based on a map I found on a Russian site. The placement of the swamps on the map is close but not exact to what I found on other maps. The map at soldat.ru is detailed but I find it hard to decipher, at least in black and white. As well, I don't really have good data for unit placement and the scale of the map doesn't lend itself well to a lot of detail (trying to zoom in more would result in a ragged appearance). Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I expect maps will be a problem. Which map did you use (from which site). I have to get back to it and do more research. I saw some geographic references, but I would have to sit down and go over that BW map on soldat.ru to understand exactly where they are. Slantsy was the easiest to find. Did you look in the Wikipedia map resources for other map-making tools? I had a quick look a couple of weeks ago, but didn't try anything. It doesn't help that Russian maps use a somewhat different standard to that used in the West. --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I note the map on this site omits the Slantsy entirely! http://www.germanwarmachine.com/waffenss/1944/retreatfromleningrad.htm --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fronts of the Soviet Army

Thanks to your idea, there is now a new template for Fronts linked at the bottom of the Fronts article. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's up to you, as you've been doing most of the VVS & PVO formations. However my preference, if it were asked, would probably be with the PVO. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, but also thought PVO would be the place. I will link them tho their ground namesakes in the Fronts article.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 09:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also (1) could you cite the PVO Fronts, and (2) is there any source in Russian or English that would enable us to do an article on the Moscow PVO Front->AD District-> etc? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, no. However there is a short blurb in Russian that maybe you can translate here [3] (with OOBs) and also a short history of PVO here that includes dates of formation here [4] (probably you know this as "PVO Herald" site). You may be able to find more online using фронты ПВО, корпуса ПВО, дивизии ПВО search words.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 23:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I (inadequately) can read, it would be possible to semi-cite the Fronts insert from the two sites you've just listed. Would you mind at least doing that? It's better than nothing. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean cite the sites, or translate the site content?--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 23:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean insert a <ref> </ref> tag using those two sites, which will at least provide a source for some of what you've inserted. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military-Naval Fleet

Good additions in the Soviet Navy article. Would you mind citing them, especially the statement that there were about 30 flotillas interwar and that list of units on the outbreak of the GPW? Also there is an article, Pacific Ocean Fleet that you can link to for the TOF. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

At this stage, no. I have a 14 page document someone from Ukraine sent me on the history of VMF a couple of years ago, and I have no idea who. The document looks like a large essay with several sources but unreferenced. However I will be looking for references at a later stage. I just need to put the fleets and flotillas in there for now. I was surprised on the 30 flotillas myself. I only have a record of the wartime flotillas and there were about 15, so will have to look further.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the naval parts of Perecheni before, but it turns out they are spread over several volumes :O\--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 07:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My plans now

Now the 51st has been cleared for A-class, I'd like to fill in a bit more of the history of the 5th Army. If you know of good detailed information on that around, especially detailed individual divisional actions, please make me aware of it. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't work with big blocks of content as the article is now, or to look for any generic divisional actions. If you section the article up a bit, and define which actions (operations) you need, I can help.

Can I make a bargain with you? If I help you with this, would you mind also inserting the data I provide for your article into any operations articles?--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 02:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'd had a look at the article a bit more closely you'd have seen that this is the key paragraph which needs expansion:

'As part of the Western Front and Third Belorussian Front, the 5th Army then took part in the Operation of Rzhev-Vyazma, the Second Battle of Smolensk, the Belorussian Operation of 1944, and the attack on East Prussia of 1945. After that the 5th Army was moved to the Soviet Far East and, as part of the Far East Front, took part in the Harbin-Jilin Operation, or Operation August Storm.'

So it's the role of 5th Army in all those operations - everything up to that point is covered. And yes, it may be a bit hard to work a single army's role into the very general activities described usually at the moment, but I'll fit them in and try not to make it stand out too much. My point is I'd like detail - these operations covered 10-15 divisions per Army sometimes, yet individual divisions are seldom mentioned in some accounts. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look. I have far too much on my hands right now for an entire article like that to sink in.

Do you have any idea how many divisional actions are covered by Soviet military history analysis? I hope you live long enough to cover them all, because if you do, by the time you are finished your name will be changed to Yoda :o) However, if you tell me which Army and which divisions youa re interested in, I will look.

What do you use for translation from Russian? (I may have asked before, but can't remember) Editing translation is the most time consuming part.

In any case, I will see what I can find, starting with Perecheni I suppose. Speaking of Perecheni, Craig sent me a few spreadsheets of translation he has completed, and I though I'd pass them on (unless he sent them to you also?). You will be particularly interested in the Kerch Defensive Region belonging to the 51 Army between 4 November 1941 - 20 May 1942 after which time it was disbanded (Perechen No.3, p.16, General Staff, 1956 ed.).

I think it is currently unrealistic to cover divisional participation in operations. If for no other reason then the lack of people who can read Soviet maps (and their availability from the 1942 printing). Ask Mr.Wilson who had a look at a copy of one of the 1942 Narva maps. Another site that has a map of the operation has left out a whole city and a railway because they relied on the German maps hand-drawn from memory using commercial atlases after the war. However, I'll do what I can--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 05:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kursk and the Ju 87G.

Please note the Ju 87G-1 was in action long before August 1943!!!!! The "Gs" were used in the Kuban region in the Spring of 1943. Rudels StG 2 Immelmann was equipped with the Ju 87G-1 in May/June. Rudel himself knocked out 12 Soviet tanks on the 5 July 1943 with the Ju 87G-1. Dapi89 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read here [5]--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 21:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Moscow

Mrg3105, I wish could offer a magic bullet, but I can't. Strength and casualty statistics are notoriously variable from author to author. Bergstrom's work, from the title at least, sounds like a focused and up to date look at the air conflict. If you wish, I can plumb the German official history to see what it has to say and the Soviet official history as well. As far the behavior of other editors, as you've seen I'm having my own disagreement on the Narva Bridgehead battle talk page and am honestly perplexed why the footnote is such a problem. All I can say is that editors who perform more than three reverts in 24 hours can be temporarily banned from editing because their behavior is considered disruptive. Another, and likely tiring, option is to have an editing dispute arbitrated, in this case probably by the military history project. In some cases, that is all that will settle disruptive editors down other than being outright banned from editing for long periods of time. It is a shame that 60+ years after these events, it is still so hard to obtain consensus on something as well-known as the Battle of Moscow. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Besides that, I think that casualties are rather immaterial to the articles although this sounds insensitive. The point is, was the goal or objective of the battle, operation or strategy achieved or not, and not the losses suffered. However since most articles fail to clearly state what these were, it is not surprising that analysis tends towards the quantitative rather then the qualitative. I'm thinking that claims by both sides need to be incorporated to avid these edit disputes. I do not want to EVER again seek arbitration. Bergstrom's work is relatively new, and I tend to wait a year or two before I purchase something from an author I'm unfamiliar with firstly so I can obtain several reviews, and because the prices tend to become more affordable.

In regards tot he "Battle of European SS", I have enough trouble with the overuse of the word "battle", so I am way out of the argument due to excessive bias :o) By this measure the "Battle of Moscow" can be renamed "Battle of Siberian divisions", and I have seen this on one occasion--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

One can always present the range of casualty figures and clarify with a footnote for those wondering why the 'swing' is there. The edit note then could point to the talk page for a more complete explanation as to why the change was made. It would be far better to have the parties in dispute argue this out on the talk page rather than constantly revert the edits of others, perhaps such a hint in an edit note could direct the dispute to the talk page.

Regarding these aircraft quotes, there seems to be some variation in Soviet sources, at least according to Volume 4 of the German official history (Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, p. 771, chapter by Joachim Hoffmann, ISBN 3-421-06098-3). (Discussing strength quotes found in Soviet literature) Only with respect to air strengths would a Soviet superiority be admitted. According to these quotes, around 600 German aircraft were pitted against 1,370 (1,000 or even only 762 in other sources) Soviet machines. The Soviet official history (German translation: Geschichte des Zweiten Welt Krieges, Vol. 4, p.344, A. A. Grechko as chief of the editorial commission) takes the middle road, stating the Germans had 615 aircraft and the Soviets (a nice round) 1,000. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with talk pages is that they tend to go on forever and if an editor departs for 6 moths only to return to see his figures changed the whole thing starts up again. In any case, how casualties are recorded in boxes is nonsensical. Soviet casualties are given in three categories: deaths, non-returnable (inc. prisoners/deserters) and "sanitary", i.e. ambulatory (returnable) casualties. Many 'enterprising' authors have lumped these into a single figure! Same thing happens with Germans who I believe had four categories or more for casualty reporting. I know that Commonwealth troops had a similar system. It seems to me that unless someone can't illustrate these figures from a source, they should not be allowed to edit the figures "in stone". I amy evan ask Kirill to change the templates so they prompt editors for this detail.

A similar situation exists with equipment. What does "around 600 German aircraft were pitted against 1,370" really means? Was it 599 Stukas and one FW190 vs 1369 Il-2s and one Yak? ;O) I can't remember the exact figures, but I will be publishing details for Moscow PVO forces and they were very significant, but not technically part of the VVS Armies assigned to the Fronts. Most of the frontal aviation regiments were reduced to a few aircraft from memory, and I remember reading about one fighter pilot who on reassignment to a Moscow PVO regiment found the regiment with a full complement of new aircraft, something he had not seen since the start of the war! Then there is the question of aircraft effectiveness. What proportion were fighter and what bombers (never mind other support types)? What were the AAA uses like by the respective sides. It seems to me that the availability of AAA contributes significantly to the analysis of the air combat in the sector (at least to the pilots!), and Soviet PVO Corps had AAA regiments directly assigned, as did Luftwaffe. However, instead the AAA is usually lumped with "guns" (although many were semi-auto cannons). What does guns mean anyway? Sevastopol was pounded by four batteries of siege guns in the 480mm+ caliber. Saying that Germans had 150 "guns" (for example) means absolutely nothing when there are a dozen pieces that can reduce a block into rubble every time each fires. Often though the figure "guns" also includes 37mm PaK AT guns that were retained by infantry divisions although no longer effective against Soviet newer tanks. For this reason I am adding a new section to all the Eastern Front articles structure called Statistics. If editors are going to write rubbish, then they should at least be aware what sort of rubbish it is :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet official history notes that 47.5% of the Soviet aircraft were "newer types" as opposed to the kinds of aircraft present in inventory on 22 June 1941. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as the Eastern Front articles go, I still think it would be helpful to have a comparative table of the differing casualty estimates for each operation or 'battle', with sources given, rather than just a single figure.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, however one is NEVER going to arrive at exact figures, or those that match for both sides. Its important for the author/editor to explain this to the reader. AFAIK there needs to be an article that explains how these figures are derived, and what they mean.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 09:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that exact (or matching) figures will never be arrived at; it gives a proper sense of history as a dialectic, as something subject to interpretation.

I'm coming across this problem with the Bagration rewrite, and with German casualty figures in particular. As there are so many sub-operations involved the issue of what, exactly, is defined as "the operation" becomes central. In addition, existing sources don't even seem to be able to agree on whether the German units involved were at full strength or not. What is clear is that around 30 divisions effectively vanished into thin air; it's just a case of effectively indicating what might have happened to them, and of giving a sense that there have been a variety of attempts since to shape events into a single, coherent historical narrative (starting with the original Soviet operational reports, continuing with the immediate post-war historiography heavily influenced by German commanders' memoirs, and more recently with the work of historians who have access to Soviet archives).Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What I intend to do is to go to Corps level with Germans. At this level it is easier to isolate operational boundaries and still get a degree of understanding of what happened. Below this level data from sources available to me becomes scant as most sources unfortunately focus on the 20% of the Wehrmacht Heer which was "panzer". For Red Army operational casualty figures are available on operation by operation basis, and can be worked out for armies proportionately based on their participation.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 10:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of battle and casualty statistics in general

Let me put this in context by reminding everyone that statistics are like a brief bikini: what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

There may be a start of something here for the essays page, but I'll make several statistics.

1. Different nations, for reasons they considered objective, counted things differently. IIRC, the US only counted aircraft kills once the target was airborne. The Germans counted air-to-air and verifiable air-to-ground kills. Even if these policies were definitive, I remember some Vietnam era rules of engagement that were stretched only a little: US pilots were not allowed, at the time, to attack fighters on the ground. As I remember the engagement, a North Vietnamese pilot, with a damaged aircraft, managed to get to his base, and landed, streaming smoke. The US pilot had decided that if a Sidewinder would lock onto the fire, he'd shoot. Just then, however, an unlucky MiG started a takeoff roll, and the US pilot wheeled around and fired as soon as the MiG rotated.
2. There were psychological and propaganda factors. Hitler was obsessed with numbers of divisions rather than their personnel strength, although he could recall equipment counts to an absurd level. One military may combine largely destroyed units, but there's many an account of Hitler moving units on a map table, never wanting to hear that the unit marker was all that was left.
3. I'd hesitate before making too many estimates. In Vietnam, for example, "body count" was McNamara's fixation, but, in retrospective analysis, the best metric tended to be number of enemy weapons recovered -- and that won't be very useful in doing BDA on a B-52 target cell. Fragments don't help.
4. Certainly from Vietnam on, the US historically has had different counts from the field command, national military intelligence, and CIA.
5. Medical and transportation support make an enormous difference in survival, although there is now a statistical anomaly with US casualty figures. Personal protection equipment, as well as the use of combat lifesavers, are resulting in a hospital death rate that seems higher than in other wars. The reality is that soldiers who would have died immediately were protected/stabilized well enough to die in the first hospital unit. There's an essay here that probably exists somewhere: since perhaps WWII, improvements in evacuation and trauma medicine usually improved the survival rate, but the statistics can be misleading. In Vietnam, there seemed to be an improvement in the formerly lethal adult respiratory distress syndrome ("shock lung"). The Bird respirator seemed to improve things dramatically, but we now know that its physiological model was wrong and often just postponed death.

14:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a need for an article on military statistics, even if only for the Style Guide. It seems the questions that should be asked in the statistical assessment are:

1. How they are calculated?
2. Who does the calculations?
3. The purpose or motivations that impact the statistics.
4. What stage of the event do the statistics represent:

a) immediate post-event by units involved

b) later summaries by the staffs

c) post-war researcher findings

It would seem to me that this would substantially reduce on edits if editors understood what the figures represent. All your points are valid, well known and documented...but not in Wikipedia it seems.

One recent example was the attribution of normative peace-time full-strength tank inventory of several formations in a complex AO to an operational area which I misinterpreted because it was named (typically) "battle of" suggesting only a smaller part of the AO of the entire operation. Its ok to give "ball-park" figures as long as the "ball-park" is clearly defined, and not as any park where one may play with any sort of a ball :o)

I did see a short essay on one of the aircraft forums on the "claims" made by various national air forces during Second World War (my interest for this project; I am also very well aware of the Vietnam war issues), and will try to find it again. Sadly you remain incognito, but if you are keen to write such an article please do since you seem to have a fairly good idea of the subject. Having a grounding in economics I tend to stay away from statistics unless they are used for very specific purpose, and the objective as well as motivation for their use is clearly spelled out. As I said before, if no casualties were expected, no military operation would have ever taken place. What is acceptable to the operation planning staff is a far more important piece of information then the post-operational statistics. Achievement of the goals and objectives are also far more important in understanding the event then personnel and equipment lost in the process.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth

I'm afraid I can't give you a definitive answer; the closest that I've seen is that their imagery routinely is used in teaching/demonstrating marine navigation, and also widely used in emergency response. While I do have some contacts at Google, they are in the internal networking side, so they'd probably pass you to legal anyway. Let me know, however, if you need me to try.

ISTR there is a page about Wikipedia help in getting maps released; I would suspect that whoever works with that probably has access to the right person at Google.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will investigate further, but was told earlier that Wikipedia requires a certain type of copyright waver that Google maybe unwilling to provide. Of course any image used for my purpose is going to be adulterated by annotation of unit dispositions and their movements, so would no longer be a Google image as such, and can Google really copyright the image of terrain in a country? --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 22:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 18:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, but I saw notifications earlier. I'm not in running as I have my hands full with the Eastern Front project, and will do for the next 6 months at least. If I was to put forward my nomination, it would be for co-ordination of that project only.

Speaking of "6 months", I recently ran into a problem that the template notifying readers that an article is being worked on was removed after a week because I had not done any editing on it.

• I estimate that on and off I will be working on several hundred existing articles and creating several hundred (or assisting others) for the next foreseeable future of perhaps 2 years. Until an article is at least B-class, it is not (so far as I'm concerned) completed to readable level, so needs to be tagged accordingly to let readers know they are reading incomplete articles. Does every user know to look in talk to see the status of the article? There appears to be no template that will, in a nice way, inform the reader that the article is a work-in-progress. If a template is going to be removed every week, I will not use it given the projected length of the project.
• It seems to me that it would be a good idea to display the classification on the article page also, and not only on the talk page.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 22:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FJR Hübner

If this Wiki excerpt from "Operation Blackcock" is accurate, it was not the entire 7th Armoured Division. I might be able to find something in the British official history. Cheers--139.139.35.70 (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Battle for the Dutch village of Sint Joost (51°7′0.4″N 5°53′58″E / 51.116778, 5.89944) was a turning point in Operation Blackcock. After four days of fighting the Germans were well aware that the armoured division that was facing them relied heavily on the roads to manoeuvre their armour. Especially with the poor winter conditions of the moment the tanks were tied to the roads. The small village of Sint Joost was on the route of the 7th Armoured Division’s drive north towards Montfort (51°7′36″N 5°56′49″E / 51.12667, 5.94694Coordinates: 51°7′36″N 5°56′49″E / 51.12667, 5.94694). On January 20 in cold and misty weather infantry and cavalry units of the Desert Rats launched a first attack on the (assumed) two German companies of the 2nd battalion Fallschirmjäger Regiment Hübner in Sint Joost. In the end it would take four attack waves to clear the village, the final attack taking place on Sunday, January 21. In total, sixty Fallschirmjäger were taken prisoner. The 9th Durham Light Infantry and 1st Rifle Brigade had suffered heavy losses in Sint Joost. The "Durham's" suffered 33 casualties, of which 8 were killed in action. The Rifle Brigade counted 34 casualties, of which 3 men from I Company were KIA. More than one hundred German soldiers were killed, most of them lying dead in the houses. Those paratroopers who were not killed only dared to leave the cellars under safe cover of the civilians, afraid that they would be shot by the victors. Hübner had lost one whole Company and a second had been nearly destroyed."

Do you have a source for this also? "Heavy casualties?! I don't know what the strength of the Durham's might have been on the day, but it was likely to have been at least 300 combat effectives, which means that they suffered somewhat more then 1% casualties. On the other hand 100 KIA and 60 prisoners from the FJR accounted for the two companies the British thought they had in front of them. Seems to me the Durhams did their job (probably with support).--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 11:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No source, it is from the Operation Blackcock article. Victory in the West, volume 2, p. 245-246, say this about the fight at St Joost: As the centre brigade set out for Montfort, it ran into trouble at St. Joost, only two miles from Echt, and the resulting fight lasted the greater part of two days. The newly arrived German parachutists put fresh vigour into the the tiring 176th Division and were supported by numerous self-propelled guns which inflicted severe losses on our armour. Prisoners were taken by both sides but, as more troops were brought to the task and Crocodiles were able to get within flaming distance of German 'suicide squads', the 7th Armoured Division gained the upper hand and the place was finally cleared after dark on the 21st.

Besides the presence of German assault guns (probably from 341st StG Brigade), the mention of crocodiles indicates one of the 79th Armoured Division's units were in support. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure why an individual regiment has an article at all. The regiment in question is hardly that notable. More useful would be an article that discussed the replacement army origin and history of the various German paratrooper battlegroups formed in the wake of the Allied August 1944 advance and Operation Market-Garden. I believe that Division KG Erdmann has three regiments or so like this, of which Hübner's was one. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I got the below from Michael Holm's WW2 site

Formed 20.8.44 in Bitsch (Elsaß) as an alarm unit, to reinforce the army at Arnhem. The division was formed from remnants of other units, and many training schools in Germany. For details, see the individual regiments. On 9.9.44 the last of 43 trainloads had transported the division to Holland. No heavy weapons, except in the Panzer-Jäger-Abteilung.

The division consisted of the following units:

• Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment Menzel
• Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment Grossmehl
• Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment Laytved-Hardegg
• Fallschirm-Jäger-Ersatz- und Ausbildungs-Regiment Greve
• Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment Hübner
• Bataillon Schäfer
• Bataillon Schluckebier
• Fallschirm-Panzer-Jäger-Abteilung Grunwald

On 9.10.44 the division was renamed 7. Fallschirm-Jäger-Division. The regiments did not change their designations until 25.11.44, and operated initially with their old names under the new division. Durings its brief existence, the division had operated under LXXXVI.AK / Fs.AOK.1 in Hechtel, Arnhem and the Venlo area.

Replacement troops were provided by Fallschirm-Jäger-Ersatz-Bataillon 3.

This is the problem of haphazard authoring in Wikipedia where an ersatz created regiment gets an article because the author probably read a chapter somewhere on it, but most Armeekorps do not have articles, to its difficult to place the events of the regiment into a larger situation on the front.I'm about to try and analyse exactly how much work is needed to bring Eastern Front into "focus". Of course because there is no standard structure of the unit article the author is not compelled to provide well researched and rounded-out article, but simply copies down the one source at hand.

BTW the participation of the 79th is not mentioned in Operation Blackcock, and an armoured infantry symbol is used on the provided map for the 7th. The 7th Armoured article is far from FA although there are oodles of sources on the division (even from online sources). Unbelievably both Varney and Lyne are redtaged! So much to do, so little time to do it in.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the 131st Infantry Brigade may have had attached support from the 79th AD because as far as I know, the Crocodile tanks were part of the 79th's kit and not in "standard" armoured divisions. Agree, in an 'ideal Wikipedia' this article should probably be moved to a different title and a broader scope.

This is the reason I have adopted the top-down approach and seemingly so far have not contributed much in the way of whole articles.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British military history in the Second World War

On the topic of British military history in the Second World War, I would kill to find a single comprehensive work that handles actions at the brigade level for the Campaign in NW Europe during 1944-45. The official history mostly is at corps and occasionally division level, and addresses parts of the front only as large scale action occurred. The Canadian official history is better in this sense and illuminates what was happening along the Maas Front during the winter of 1944-45. There is IMO much less information about the British forces available on the internet than that of say, the German forces, and Wikipedia reflects this imbalance. I have noted that even Janes is pretty terse on the topic of British weapons systems, even older ones, must be the official secrets thing. I have searched for a while now on the what the bursting charge of the British WW2 2-inch HE mortar round was ... not out there on the 'net from what I could find. Not in Janes either! Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here's what I was looking for Churchill Crocodiles -79th (Armoured) Division 1944-45

Churchill Crocodiles were issued to 141st Regiment, Royal Armoured Corps (RAC), formerly an infantry battalion of the Buffs (East Kent Regiment), under the command of Lieutenant Colonel H.Waddell. They formed part of 31st Armoured Brigade, 79th (Armoured) Division. (poster on the internet took from The Story of the 79th, apparently a rare work to find now. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this site has provided graphics for the FJR Hübner and Op. Blackcock articles [6] . Okay, I'll shut up now. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of British military history in the Second World War, I would kill to find a single comprehensive work that handles actions at the brigade level for the Campaign in NW Europe during 1944-45. The official history mostly is at corps and occasionally division level, and addresses parts of the front only as large scale action occurred. The Canadian official history is better in this sense and illuminates what was happening along the Maas Front during the winter of 1944-45. There is IMO much less information about the British forces available on the internet than that of say, the German forces, and Wikipedia reflects this imbalance. I have noted that even Janes is pretty terse on the topic of British weapons systems, even older ones, must be the official secrets thing. I have searched for a while now on the what the bursting charge of the British WW2 2-inch HE mortar round was ... not out there on the 'net from what I could find. Not in Janes either! Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you join the RUSI (if you are not a member already). The local library here has quite a good selection of materials, and have some of the Army's old pamphlets from the Second World War. Next time I'm there I will bear it in mind to have a look for anything on the 2-inch mortars and any works that include British brigade-level descriptions of engagements in NW Europe. Have you considered contacting the British Army Archives?

In general there is a problem with event-based historiography (i.e. everything revolving around THE "battle of") in that military history in general, as I'm sure you are aware, did not take place in an operational vacuum, and the age of THE battle had ended in the 19th century. A genuine attempt at an encyclopaedic approach to the Second World War would have a coordinated attempt to firstly list all notable commands, formations, units and even in some cases sub-units, categorised by Area of Operations (geographically) and by operational use (i.e. combat deployment; Operations). Given this approach, it immediately becomes evident if something is missing because the flanking unit would be redtaged. The unfortunate thing is that seemingly authors and editors fail to understand that an encyclopaedic approach to history is distinctly different to the published one in that it is a systematic attempt to describe everything which is notable, where as in publishing the editor decides this based on entirely different criteria not the least of which is length of the manuscript and cost of printing. How much more true is this when the encyclopaedia is an electronic one, almost infinitely expandable and editable. This is the reason I have now realised how large a task I have undertaken. I can not begin to start on the Red Army Operations when much of the opposing Wehrmacht Army and Luftwaffe, never mind the Red Army and Air Force, are not there. I estimate a need for some 4-600 new articles will be required before the project is ready for editing. --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I expect one could spend one's life on the topic of the Eastern Front in Wikipedia and still cover only the most significant topics. I am also dismayed by the scattergun approach but it is probably unavoidable given the multiple editor approach. I began a series of articles on the U.S. corps in NW Europe and need to regain momentum on that. I wanted to do the 21st AG corps as well so that an operational overview would be present, at least in chunks. If you need any start/stub articles on German army or AF formations let me know and I'll to at least put a stub in. I've got Tessin's work on CDROM plus some other references. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious offer. I'll take any help I can get :o) Now I know what if really feels like to be in the trenches, and digging them. I posted the place to get the 79th book on your talk--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 05:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 131st Motor Rifle Brigade

There are a number of military journals and CSRC reports indeed describing the state to which RGF training at fighting in urban areas had fallen in Chechniya in '94 - the brigade was virtually wiped out and the response from the hierachy was that they needed new equipment! Ridiculous. Orr describes well how they went into battle with soldiers not knowing the others in their squads, whole districts having been stripped to produce a single regiment, with virtually no pre-combat training, and specialities changed without any attempt to train personnel. You'll find a quote from Orr regarding that at the main RGF article. But I had little on the division's WW2 history, and, as I said, felt that by doing armies one would cover more divisions that by doing divs one-by-one. Have you made any progress finding material on 5th Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading a couple of articles in Russian on the action. Some of what was written is true, and some was not. In any case, there is more to add to that article as you point out, much more.

I have not found more on the 5th Army because have been busy with other things (life/work), but will look on the weekend.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Mrg3105 has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Advice to new coordinators, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] battle of Berlin

Thank you for correcting my missive on the talk:battle of Berlin page. But be warned that some editors take a very dim view of other editors changing what they wrote on a talk page so it is probably better not to do so as the guidelines suggest that it is not done (even if as in this case you were helping a person to sound a little less like a dunderhead). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What missive did I correct?--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 09:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

06:25, 15 February 2008 Mrg3105. BTW "must be an oversight since surely Use English means English alphabet!" Will set the cat among the pidgins! I suggest you read the very long archives on this particular issue to arm yourself for the storm. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philip. I have read as much archival discussion as time and my sanity permitted me. Just by way of introduction, I am a multilingual person myself and in no way wish to discriminate against others. However, although my knowledge of Latin is not as good as that of English, even I know that the use of Latin alphabet is different to that of English, particularly modern English. IF that was not so, the Vatican where Latin is the official language, would be speaking English, or French or Rumanian. Unless this is a Latin Wikipedia for use by the inhabitants of Vatican, I suggest that Use English must be interpreted in the literal and not literary sense of the word.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Had another look at the Battle of Berlin talk and sorry to say that I can't see where I corrected you. Is it possible that I mistakenly misread another editor's comments as yours?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 02:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Look inside the link 06:25, 15 February 2008 Mrg3105 it is in red :-) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Latin alphabet does not mean the alphabet used by those who write Latin. (I have fun on that article as well as this {{Latin alphabet}} template) Don't get me wrong as I said on the UE talk page I think we should default to the English Alphabet unless the sources clearly indicate that funny foreign squiggles are used in English texts, but many editors disagree and want to teach English people how they should write each languages words in English using that countries funny foreign squiggles even if the majority of reliable English sources do not. This is for nationalist reasons is a very hot issue with former East European counties. Personally I think we should go with the Economist guidelines on this that seem like a reasonable compromise (see Economist style guide: Accents). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Philip, as you are aware I have undertaken to revise and enlarge the Eastern Front articles. Guess where my "parachute" landed? :o) I have to do a bit more research, but I vaguely remember that the reigning monarch of England by some ancient right of the Oxford University actually has what amounts to in modern usage as a copyright on the English language, and what changes can be made to it in speech or writing. This eventually led to the 18th and 19th century debates over these matters in the English society, and eventual standradisation of the usage to what is now known as modern English in UK and the Commonwealth. In simple terms, and if one wants to be blunt about it, Americans are infringing on the copyright held by Her Majesty the Queen of England :o) (the real cause of the AWI). I wonder how much in royalties she may claim from non-Commonwealth states for use of English ;o)? In any case, the fact remains unaltered and undeniable that Latin is an official (if dead) language of a recognaised state. It can not be used as a general reference for English language usage by another state or states (53 at last count). Nor can its usage policies be extended into Wikipedia. Indeed, I wonder what version of English is used by Vatican for translation.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 02:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Dukla Pass

Since you are interested in Eastern Front battles, perhaps you'd like to look at this new article I've written and nominated for DYK.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, despite the impressive 2m article count we have still barely scratched the surface. I have just created another article about a major EE event (Siege of Brest (1941)); perhaps it is the cold winter snap that struck my area just recently :) The Dukla Pass battle will likely be DYKed in the next few days; if you could expand it with before that it would be great (I mostly exhausted my sources, which primarily were the online ones). My most professional source, Glant's article, unfortunately only mentions Dukla battle in passing: "The offensive by the 1st Ukrainian Front’s 38th Army and supporting mobile corps faltered in late October in the Dukla Pass because of the difficult terrain and strong German counterstrokes, while 4th Ukrainian Front’s offensive achieved only limited progress in the mountains farther east." Not that helpful, I am afraid.

Certainly I agree with all the points you make; unfortunately when one cobbles an article from few random sources, this is what we get - more missing stuff than not, kind of like the proverb about 'the more you know...'. It is still years till we have better articles; in the meantime, we just have to keep adding brick by brick to the immense wall (to be, mostly) that is Wikipedia (I recently rewrote articles about Polish armies in 1939 to add some strategic scope, for example). Having written several Featured Articles, now I find more pleasure in witting smaller ones suitable for DYKing. I guess I just like variety, in topics and in scope, of my works :) PS. Yes, I was also shocked about the Czechoslovakian corps not having an article; unfortunately I don't know Russian. I guess there is still no Czech WWII fanatic; I can do only so much and I concentrate on Polish history (hence Czechoslovak military units on Eastern front vs Polish Armed Forces in the East). Perhaps we could add a request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic for an article on that subject. PSS. Talk about missing articles... I was very suprised we were missing an entry on that - and that I had to translate it from pl wiki :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the German-Polish war of 1939 recently, but early last year I had a look and thought more could be said. Certainly the Poles put up a very good fight considering comparison with the time it took for the Wehrmacht to overcome France and the Low countries. I am not going to be able to contribute to the Dukla article in the near future, but will ask the author of the Czechoslovakian site to contribute/collaborate on the Czechoslovakian Corps. --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 01:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinator elections

Would encourage you to put in some votes for the various coordinator candidates up for election. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whom would you suggest?--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 02:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, I think that I should not give strong recommendations, but perhaps you might consider voting for MBK004. Also, you cannot make 'oppose' votes; it states there that only approval voting is in use. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Must be in the small print I didn't see--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the top of the page, immediately under the main announcement. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Will you please stop breaking links!

There is a perfectly good article for the Belarussian/Belorussian Military District accessible through that link you just changed, and you broke it. Why? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such entity as the Belarussian Military District. The official language of the Soviet Army when the Belorussian Military District was in existence was Russian, and in Russian the name was Belorussian Military District. Yes, I know you are going to tell me that I am being pedantic. However this is how precedents are created that snowball into use of other languages in what is supposed to be English Wikipedia. If I am going to edit here, I at least what to know what language to use and SOME firm policy on editing, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). However, since you reverted my revert without bothering to get a reply from me, why bother asking? Obviously my opinion means nothing. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 01:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As I told you in another case, I reverted you because you BROKE THE LINK. The correct spelling is usually not my concern - how could it be, as I'm no real student of Russian? There would have been not problem had you gone to the BMD article, moved it to the other spelling, and changed the links pointing to it accordingly. The only reason I created the article at Bela rather than Belo is that more redlinks pointed to it (I can remember wondering which one I should put it as). But if you think it's wrong, don't break the link; simply change the link name, and if you think the district name should change, change it. But remember that I've gone round adding at least 100 links to the existing name since I created the article, so be sure to change them too.

In general, if you don't like the spellings, please don't break the links I've spent some much time inserting, change the article names in all the appropriate places and preserve the linkings. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you are suggesting is that because you failed to identify the correct spelling I should now go around fixing the 100 or so links that you "fixed"? May I suggest that it is your obligation as an editor to do the research before creating the article, and particularly in the article nameing, and if the error turns out to be yours, then you should do the right thing and fix it. I broke the link to suggest to you that the link was wrong without making a "song and dance" about it. I do not break a link for the fun of it as you already know. You can move the article and change the links. God knows I will have enough of that to do in the next couple of years --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 02:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already told you that I'm no student of Russian. I have done a massive amount of work to create the articles on all the MDs, and you're suggesting that if I make one 'mistake', which I as far as I was concerned at the time was a matter of choosing between all the sources that said 'a' and all the sources that said 'o', I cannot expect to have the normal wiki-process of people coming after me and correcting my mistakes operate? PLEASE DO NOT BREAK THE LINKS I'VE SPENT SO MUCH TROUBLE CREATING. Doing so, destroying the work I've done, is a massive 'song and dance' in my opinion. If you want to suggest something, please email me, or leave a note on my talk page - that's the polite way of doing it. Look at it this way - would you rather I 'suggested' that I thought your article renamings were wrong by reverting them without discussion? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the edit that there was no Belarussian Military District in 1960. I would have though that was clue enough.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 03:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputing titles of around 50-Romanian/Moldovan-related articles

I reverted you. Why did you did that? Please see: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

If you think that the current usage in Wikipedia is wrong, propose something on Romania Wikiproject talk page, don't start changing wholesale the articles. bogdan (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change the articles. I don't agree with the names of the articles. It is not a disruption or the template would not be there to be used. The template also suggests that you should talk about it before removing it. Did you read that? I shall bring your points up in the appropriate talk page.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

By adding it to a large number of articles, you're disrupting Wikipedia and that's against the policy. Anyway, you did not say anywhere why you disagree with the names. bogdan (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How are my disrupting the Wikipedia? I disagree with any use of diacritics per WP:UE, and I said so in every instance. In any case, you removed the templates before even attempting to ask. So it seems that I did communicate the reason, and you failed to respond or discuss but simply took the unilateral action against express statement on the template not to do so. Who do you think is the wronged party here?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The reasonable thing to do would be to try to discuss it with other people. There are probably around 200,000 articles with diacritics? What are you going to do, add that tag to all of them? bogdan (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Even God had to start somewhere ;O) --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NCGN

Yes, it certainly is stable. These are the changes over the last eight months: A few elaborations and observations; but only one real controversy, which resulted in compromise; no change to our fundamental doctrine, which is what WP:RM actually does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to look in on the Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive and a related Talk:Battle of Poznań (1945) as I see you are an administrator. From this evolved the Talk:Chişinău. I can see no way of resolving this without administrative intervention.

I also can see no way of resolving the issue because despite all use of reason, logic and the letter and spirit of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not to mention the English language, I am simply outnumbered. If I request an WP:RM again, "editors" will surface who, having not participated in the actual discussion, will suddenly offer a "vote" against resulting in "no consensus". I see the same result occurring from a Request for Arbitration. In any case, I see no dispute, but only abuse of the English language.

I am unclear as to why the original English title could have been summarily moved to a Romanian title with no discussion or even the use of a WP:RM, but the process to reverse this requires a change in English language teaching for much of the English speaking world?

Would you be able to provide guidance as to what should be undertaken as my experience in the Wikipedia administrative procedures is limited, and my personality is more predisposed to editing then following these procedures, for which I unfortunately have little patience. I also have a low tolerance for injustice. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your signature isn't being recognized by the bots. You may consider moving the "If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target." to before the link to your name. Ral315 (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I just forgot to sign, which is unusual for me. This was either at about 2am at the end of the exercise to prove English language is not like Romanian, or today when I was in a hurry and due to lack of sleep was not quite focused. However, thank you for your suggestion.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About your correction to my user page

Thank you. I've been waiting for two years to see who'd finally see and make this correction. It was you. BusterD (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice it when I wrote it, but about a week later I saw it and decided to make it my first intentional error. Fishing for those who care, as you do. Re: incivility, I'd start here, and escalate depending on how hot the fire gets. If you need extra eyes, feel free to call on me. BusterD (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

English is not my first language, but I decided that as long as I'm going to use it, I might as well do it right. ;o)

Thank you for the link. I'll see how I go. For now I will give the user the benefit of the doubt since he/she is not a native English speaker either, and assume in good faith that he/she is unaware of the many meanings of "spurious".

I don;t need an extra pair of eyes, but voting would help. You see this is the case where "numbers talk, logic walks"...in hand with Wikipedia policy ;O)--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Wehrmacht anyone?

I'm more than happy to take a look at anything that's giving you particular difficulty - if you'd like me to look at certain articles or sections once you've reached a certain stage of development, or if you have questions about particular terminology, just drop me a note on my talk page. You may also find this to be of some use. Carom (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carom. I am aware of the standard military terminology. What I am more concerned with is mis-spelled names (particularly personal names) which are needlessly red-linking, place names with which I am not familiar, and less often used military terms (I think some are not official but invented). In general all articles require this. I will be linking them in over time, so I will not be inactive, but the scope of the project is very large for the few editors now working on it. I am therefore looking for any assistance I can find, particularly in terms of improving quality of articles. Thank you in advance for any help--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timing

It is only a timing issue and hence a misunderstanding. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean timing? I thought you deleted my post to your talk.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 12:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions (use English)

I've already posted at that discussion -twice- in the last hour. For an example of why diacritics should be eradicated, see this article. It seems to me, the English speaking laymen of English Wikipedia (such as myself) have been over-runned. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm working on it (though I haven't visited the talk today yet). I am not a hokey aficionado (spectator when its on tv), but I note the image of the back of the player has his name spelled differently to his birth name. Is the argument that he was notable from birth, or only because he is a good hockey player in the international arena? The question is not a sarcastic one. If the place-names can vary depending on historical periods, then people's names can also vary depending on their periods in life. If I was to move to Japan, I would never spell my name in the same way again.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if a person's birth name is with diacritics? those diacritics should be removed, as this is English Wikipedia, not Universal Language Wikipedia. I would settle for having the diacritics in the opening line of these articles, but that's it. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my soon to be posted replies to Nightstallion...btw, I rally dislike pointing out the obvious to people because to me its a form of insult, even if unintended, but I have no choice!--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, what'd ya want to show me? GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand now. I'll try not to complicate things further - I'll be waiting. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] alphabets and scripts

Hi Mrg3105,
regarding the use of English and Latin alphabets, there is some confusion going on. An alphabet is defined by the character set (glyphs. graphemes) it uses. Which language is written in this alphabet is not important. For instance, Kazakh can be written with the Latin, Cyrllic or Arabic alphabet. For these purposes, one can also call an alphabet a script or a writing system. The main scripts in use today in the world are the Latin alphabet, the Cyrillic alphabet, Devanagari, Chinese script etc.

Another use of "alphabet" is the choice of a subset of symbols of a writing system a particular language makes. The English alphabet in this sense for instance uses the Latin (or Roman) script, and uses the familiar letters a-z. The Italian alphabet in this sense also uses the Latin script, but has no k or w. German uses a-z, but also has ä, ö, ü and ß. These are letters not known to Latin, still German uses Latin script (and not Arabic, or Cyrillic, or Chinese). There is no such thing as an Italian script or an English script. You can get an overview of what are commonly considered members of the Latin script at Latin_characters_in_Unicode. Note that there is no English characters in Unicode.

To get to transliteration, transliteration means the rendering of text written in one script in another script. You can transliterate from Devanagari to Roman, from Japanese to Cyrillic, from Cree to Chinese, you get the picture. Note that the process of transliteration involves scripts, not the language particular alphabets.

You asked If Latin and English transliterations are the same, does it not make more sense to refer to English transliterations in an English Wikipedia and to Latin transliterations in the Latin Wikipedia?

It is not possible to transliterate anything into "English alphabet", because English has no alphabet in the first sense, i.e. a script. The script English uses is the Roman script, so transliterating to the script that English uses is the same as transliterating to the script that Latin uses. This script is commonly refered to as Latin script or Roman script, not as English script. So also the English wp should only use "transliteration into Latin script". I have to correct my edit summary to the extent that "English transliteration" is simply impossible, hence I shouldn't have stated that amounted to the same as Latin transliteration. If you want to know more about this, feel free to ask. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Writing_systems, where you will find more information on this or get a second opinion Jasy jatere (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

“Which language is written in this alphabet is not important.” It is important to the reader.

Alphabet is not same as a script. Most English speakers understand a script to be a script (typeface). In this sense German had used many different scripts throughout its history that were very different to the modern (or old) English standard alphabet as taught in English language educations systems. “Unicode” is a relatively new IT-specific development which is not commonly taught to English speakers.

The “process of transliteration involves scripts, not the language particular alphabets.” This can only be said if you understand the meaning of script as a “writing system” which have changed throughout the history of different societies. Some are still changing.

If you look up the article writing system you will see that “some physical means of distinctly representing the symbols by application to a permanent or semi-permanent medium, so they may be interpreted (usually visually, but tactile systems have also been devised for the visually impaired)” is required. This needs to be edited because the keyboard, which is a physical means of input for representing symbols, represents a transitory medium either in the sense of screen output or the storage media used in the computer system. The standard modern English keyboard (UK or US) defines how the text is input, and interpreted. The physical means of the keyboard limits the script for the English user to the modern standard English alphabet.

Given this recent limitation, the English usage developed over centuries to transliterate (if imperfectly for vocalisation) other languages, often only from vocal sample due to lack of (standard) written systems in some societies.

Given that many written systems and the alphabets they use are still developing, if only due to political and social changes that influence them, it is impractical to impose non-English writing systems on the English speakers.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[You may move this discussion elsewhere if you want]. There are different things which need to be distinguished: Writing system (eg Roman), language particular alphabet (English alphabet), grapheme-phoneme-correspondences, character encoding (ISO-8859-1, Unicode), font (Times New Roman, Sil Doulous IPA). German has used different writing systems (Roman and Sütterlin), basically the same alphabets in both writing systems, and of course as many fonts as you wish (I suppose you refer to Fraktur when you say that German used different scripts, but I may be wrong here).

Yet another thing is your keyboard layout. The standard US qwerty keyboard is useful for some characters, less so for others.

The physical means of the keyboard limits the script for the English user to the modern standard English alphabet. This is not true. I use the keyboard layout us_intl on a qwerty keyboard and I can do all kinds of things with it e.g. öïÝỹĉ just to put down a few. Furthermore, you can use KeyMan or scim to input other scripts with a qwerty keyboard (been there, done that), but most users never have to do so and so normally are not aware of that

You can actually also input English text with a German qwertz keyboard or a French azerty. Or you can input German with azerty, or French with qwertz, or French with qwerty.

Given that English uses the Roman writing system, and Slovak or Polish do as well, in those cases no one is imposing foreign writing systems upon the English speakers, just some foreign symbols. The case would be different if the names of Sumo wrestlers would only be given in Japanese script(s), and I agree with you that one should not impose such foreign writing systems on speakers of English. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

I can try. -- Avi (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian flag anachronism

You are apparently accusing me of using an anachronistic flag to represent Napoleonic era Russia. According to the Russian flags article, I would indeed be correct. But I'm no expert on the history of Russian flags.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you really felt it appropriate you could change it to the Romanov flag (), though that would contradict a previously mentioned article.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I simply enquired. Since you are not an expert, you may have considered asking in the talk page. I will discuss the issue in that page. The Russian Empire didn't have a flag in 1812. The flag illustrated represents "colours" chosen for "celebrations and notable events" by several preceding Russian monarchs. The colours were also used in officer sashes and in cockades. However, the cockade was changed to black and white by Alexander I. The reason the flag used in the Battle of Borodino displayed the eagle is because the eagle was the Imperial symbol (double eagle). This Imperial symbol was displayed on the standards of every regiment, and the personal flags of all the generals. The double eagle ws therefore the most appropriate symbol to use in the article.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 03:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, pretty much every article concerning the French invasion of Russia features the white-blue-red (modern) Russian flag. If I felt as strongly as you apparently do about this, I address that on their talk page. If the discussion their rules in favor of the Imperial eagle flag you promote, I'll gladly join the project to place/replace these flags in the articles in question.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue in the flags of Russia article, and if you wish to take it upon yourself to inform other article editors that there was no national flag in the Russian Empire for that period, it would certainly improve the article quality. I believe there was an editor who was working on the 1812 French invasion range of articles, and he had originally placed the standard with the eagle on my advice before your change. I know how people get about correct flags. Its just that in this case what is really needed is a different image which I don't have, that is the personal version of the Double-headed Eagle of Alexander Ist.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Madej

No, I do not have any of his books. One thing - would you mind placing a note in the Soldat.ru formations discussion forum for any information they have on the 270th Rifle Division? Its history from 1945-70s is especially unclear. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there is something there already--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 03:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked on the forum link - http://www.soldat.ru/forum/frames.html?gb=3 - and it's not there, as far as I can see. Where did you put it? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't asked yet. Was watching a movie about GPW. Its Defender Day today in Russia. But I did a search, and there are several posts there.

[edit] 270th MRD

Here it is in Russian if you are impatient for it :o) 270-я мотострелковая дивизия

19 августа 1967 года был создан кадр мотострелковой дивизии в Дальневосточном военном округе, не имеющий даже номера и своего места дислокации, в подвесок к 129-й мсд (как её второй состав в ее ППД – Князе-Волконское). Условное наименование в/ч 61304. 3 марта 1970 года была развёрнута 270-я мотострелковая дивизия в городе Хабаровск. Дивизия вошла в состав 15-й общевойсковой армии Дальневосточного военного округа.

Сейчас дивизия окружного подчинения. В состав дивизии входят: 102-й мотострелковый полк; 478-й мотострелковый полк; 882-й мотострелковый полк; 509-й танковый полк; 470-й зенитный ракетный полк.

270 мсд переброшена в ДВО в 15 ОА в 1969 г. (г.Хабаровск), в период 19.08.67-03.03.70 была кадрированной 270 мсд (пп-61304). С ВОВ почетное наименование 270 сд (2ф) - 270-я стрелковая Демидовская Кр.Знам. дивизия. Не думаю, что у 270 мсд другое имя, т.к. преемственность прямая. До переброски в ДВО стояла в Оренбургской обл., г.Бузулук. С уважением, И.И.Ивлев.

270-я мотострелковая дивизия

В конце войны в состав дивизии входили: 943-й стрелковый полк;

До 1953 года дивизия именовалась 41-я стрелковая бригада. В 1953 году 41-я стрелковая бригада была развернута в 270-ю стрелковую дивизию. В 1954 году 270-я стрелковая дивизия участвовала в Тоцких «атомных» учениях. В 1955 году 270-я стрелковая дивизия была переименована в 44-ю стрелковую дивизию. Изменилась и нумерация полков. В 1957 году 44-я стрелковая дивизия была переформирована в 44-ю мотострелковую дивизию. В 1965 году 44-я мотострелковая дивизия была переименована в 270-ю мотострелковую дивизию. В конце 1960 годов 270-я мотострелковая дивизия была передислоцирована на Дальний Восток в состав 15-й общевойсковой армии с Южного Урала.

Дислоцируется в городе Хабаровск и входит в состав 35-й общевойсковой армии Дальневосточного военного округа. В состав дивизии входят: 102-й мотострелковый полк; 478-й мотострелковый полк; 882-й мотострелковый полк; 509-й танковый полк; 470-й зенитный ракетный полк. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mrg. The machine translations I'm using make it unclear what was happening in the 67-70 period; cadre, associated with 129th Division, or what? and on what dates? The 35th Army OB would be helpful too. Best regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you got it mostly right. The division was reformed, but initially had no official name or even dislocation. The provisional unit designation was "military unit No. 61304", and CADRE dislocated with the 129th Division before becoming established under own name, and transferred to Khabarovsk. I'm a little confused because lower down it says that the 44th MRD was transformed into the 270th in 1965, but at the top it says that this occurred on the 19 August 1967. The usual time for a division to be formed from cadre (post 1956) was about a year, so not sure why it took so long.

Many of the 35th Army subunits are not known from the forum listing, so I will list them as "Nth".--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 22:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't find out when the 5th Army was awarded the Red Banner, can you? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think there are two different armies. I will keep researching, but it seems I was also confused.

The first 5th Army was the one that Tukhachevsky commanded during the Civil War. This Army was disbanded and recreated again based on the Army of the Far-Eastern Republic. It was granted the Red Banner order sometime in the 20s just after the Civil War. This Army was later also disbanded, and used to create the Far-Eastern Red Banner military district which within a couple of weeks became a Front.

The second 5th Army (1st formation) was raised in the late 30s, and was disbanded during 41. 2nd formation was raised later, and you know about it.

If the Red Banner order was restored to it, then this happened after 1991. However, I think this is unlikely because I don't know one formation from the Civil War that had been reactivated. I need to do more research.

As a bit of good news I found an obscure Russian site with an article on the six Sapper Armies which I have been hunting for a while.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 12:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Second 5th Army, 1st Formation, being the one that M.I. Potapov commanded within the KSMD? Not 100% sure from what you're saying. Also, if you've got a site with Sapper army information, I'd really encourage you to add it to the links at the bottom of Mr Wilson's shiny new article on the Sapper Armies - more info, the better, and anyone can use machine translations to access the info. Finally, please take a look at 270th Rifle Division and correct any errors I've got there. Take the inuse banner down when you've finished. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] INTP

I edit most pages randomly, but I did end up at this one because it relates to me. :) The external links policy guideline suggests that "11. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET." should be avoided. I was just going along with this guideline, since the two links were to forums. Somno (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case the forums are a discussion about us, and not a social network. In a way its an accessible plain English source of comments on the method as it relates to MBTI, so vaguely useful. I picked up a few of the people in the list there, and I hope to slowly expand the article and annotate the list, time and other projects permitting. Cheers, and best wishes from the East ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The social networking part refers to sites like MySpace; the second part refers to "discussion forums", which these links are. The material in them is not neutral or accurate, it's just people's unsourced, unreliable personal opinions. From what I understand, links to those types of resources don't belong in the encyclopedia, either as cited sources or external links. Not sure about the other links in the article either - I didn't go through them all. :) Somno (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right after all. I was going to read through them eventually, so I guess I'll just try to get sources elsewhere. Thanks for that. How's it in WA these days? One state I have never been to. Never even flew over it. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. There must be some good sources somewhere out there! Perth is hot! 37 degrees today and tomorrow, and 38 Thursday and Friday. Yuck. I think I'll move to Tasmania. Every day I see their weather forecast on the news and think "Oh, that looks nice". :) Somno (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Tassie is great, but not much work. Was there a few years ago...great place! Sydney is weird in the last few years. This summer barely lasted a month, and we had a couple of torrential rains like I haven't seen in a decade within a few weeks of each other. Seems we did bugger up the climate. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions revert

Hi Mrg! No offense intended, but please leave other editors contributions intact and do not introduce formatting and emphasis not in the original. See Wikipedia:TPG#Others.27_comments. I have reverted your edit. Feel free to reply in a less invasive manner. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I only introduced formatting because editors fail to break up their ideas into succinct and explicit ideas I can reply to. This way they can relate to what I replied to, and how I interpreted their contribution in case they claim I misinterpreted them. Do you want me to point you to the relevant parts of the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, or have you read the whole page?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for the inconvenience!

My apologies... I was using Lupin's "Filter Recent changes" utility, saw some vandalism, went to revert it and... one line too high. Hope it didn't disrupt your conversation. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No probs, everything seems to be in order. What is a Lupin's "Filter Recent changes" utility?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam and TECHINT

I'm trying to stop giggling, for reasons I shall explain. One of my contracts during the war had me doing some research on the various "people sniffer" devices for finding hidden guerillas, and also for detecting activity on the Trail.

Now, this is where sourcing gets frustrating, because I know I read this in the MACV Lessons Learned series, which were declassify from CONFIDENTIAL in 3 years -- and I worked on this no later than 1969. As you may know, the most widely used sensor, the only one that could be used from a helicopter, detected ammonia concentrations. I do have a citation about its effectiveness from the US side, but the comedy (part 1) comes up in that NVA TECHINT eventually found out how it worked, developed some countermeasures, and sent them down the food chain.

The "Lesson Learned" was that they had, indeed, figured out the mode of operation. How did we know that? One NVA went chieu hoi -- defected to our side. The interrogators, in an apparently quite friendly conversation, said he had to get away from his sergeant because the sergeant had gone crazy and would get them all killed.

"What made you think this of the sergeant?"

"He read a paper, then got empty beer bottles and told us to urinate into them, and then climb trees and hang them from the branches." To MACV personnel in the know, it sounded like a pretty good field expedient ammonia generator, but to a NVA private...

The US bedbugs were much more selective, but the command refused to deploy them.

Are you thinking about TECHINT in both directions, or ours on their field expedient things?

Incidentally, I did try to expand the TECHINT article beyond tactical into strategic STINFO, which sort of gravitated into economic intelligence. There's a lot of meat in the article, but it's chaotic and probably needs to split. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, funny :O) I read of a similar thing, but used by US SF for throwing NVA dogs off scent by collecting wild pig piss! Apparently dogs are not very keen on wild pig. For a joke, on extraction they poured the remnants of their containers over a tree to reassure the NVA that...pigs could fly!

I did read your article on TECHINT, and its very good, but the NVA perspective would be good of course. I know very little about it, mostly from snippets here and there as I have not got deep into the LL declassified reports. Years ago I met an Australian ordnance sergeant you told me he worked with Americans on this, but would not elaborate.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rereading the notes, remember that from the US perspective, it could get TECHINT on much the same equipment that the North Vietnamese was using, but from the Israelis. There are some US Army histories, probably online, that include TECHINT, more in the South. I have no immediate ideas on how to get NV or Soviet perspectives. Had this been a few years earlier, it is the sort of thing that might have been declassified from Penkovsky's report, but he was shot long before the buildup in Vietnam. I can try searching CIA FOIA as a start, but I'd be surprised to see anything. There are a couple of people I might ask. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] diacritics again

Hi mrg3105,
I can see points both for and against using diacritics. I have my personal opinion on the relative merit of these points, but this is not important for now.

I surely have noticed that you are rather negative towards diacritics, while nightstallion is rather pro, with arguments being voiced over and over.

The discussion on the talk page did not seem very focussed to me, this is why I started the collection of arguments on the talk page (which I would love to see filled up be you, by the way).

I am a professional linguist, and I work with scripts, alphabets, character encodings, codepages, keyboard layouts and all that stuff on a daily basis. I can even brag to have devised an alphabet myself, for a hitherto unwritten language (I avoided diacritics for that alphabet, by the way, for a good reason, but it is in Latin script). It took me some time to get the subtle differences between the notions of alphabet, character encoding and keyboard layout, and I would not expect wikipedians to be aware of these subtleties. The proposal I made is purely technical in nature, it would not change the content of the policy. It would rather reword the current policy to sound less, well, uninformed and unprofessional.

The proposal you made does aim at changing policy. Both proposals do not compete, they could both be implemented, or only one of them, or none. I think you should not regard my proposal as opposed to yours, but rather as complementary. Jasy jatere (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105 comments like this

Since you can't cope with so much information, and you replies have declined to monosyllables, maybe you will agree that the accent marks are used to help human beings pronounce sounds? You can reply with 0 for yes, and 1 for no if you prefer. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be seen as a breach of Wikipedia:Civility, no matter how frustrated you get please do no use language like this as it does not lead to harmony and consensus. If you are considered to be in breach of Wikipedia:Civility you may face a temporary block on your Wikipedia user account. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"it does not lead to harmony and consensus" sounds almost like a religious mantra! Whatever happened to being bold and showing leadership?! That is how Wikipedia started you know. Imagine if Jimbo had to achieve consensus online before starting Wikipedia ;O)

I think it is highly uncivil to reply with a Mu. If this is a reflection of face-to-face interaction, how would that be taken in a civil society? This is besides the point that using a language the other individual may not be aware of is highly uncivil.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jasy jatere

As it happens I have a significant interest in linguistics. However your professionalism is not an attribute in this case. You see, we are attempting to put together a reference work and not a definitive work on linguistics. The primary concern of the editors needs to be focused on the readers, the vast majority of whom are not linguists, and will never be fluent in a second language.

You are mistaken when you say that I want to get rid of accents. As far as I'm concerned they are not in the English language in the first place! If you care to do some field research, and ask a random sampling of about 2,000 average native speakers in an English speaking country, you will see this proposition confirmed to 90+% accuracy.

The reason my proposal went off-focus is the same reason others failed to reach consensus since at least 2003. Eventually they descend into arguments over exceptions that are at most described by about 800 words in the English vocabulary of 500,000 words! It is the linguistic version of Myopia my friend. It is very nice of professional or amateur linguists to argue over spelling of a few exceptions, but in the wider sense for the rest of the English speaking World this is irrelevant. Society makes its own rules, and as a professional linguist you know this. Education systems struggle to maintain standards, and not only in English speaking societies because languages change! English changes from complex to simple! 79,000 words have been borrowed into the English language since the Norman invasion, and all are without accents now. Those that retain them are either recent borrowings, or anachronistic and rarely used. Charlotte Brontë is spelled this way because its quaint, not because that is how its used in English. I live next to a suburb called Bronte with a population of thousands, and not one of these residents spells their suburb name Brontë.

Statistically speaking these odd words will be integrated into common usage before we pass from this World, and be retained without accents by the general population. I see little reason why a socio-linguistic trend that has persisted for 1,000 years should change now. Society has its own consensus which Wikipedia is not going to influence because the education institutions are not going to start teaching accents from 40-odd languages to kids more interested in 4th generation computer programming languages. I call it "get real".

In any case, the other problem with making proposals is that one expects reasonable people to address them and not pronounce all English speakers ignorant for failing to memorise accents use in every Latin-based language in the World. Do average Germans have this level of knowledge? Do average Turks, average Czechs? I doubt it. So why the English speakers being singled out for this? It seems to me only to prove a point, and the point is - there are more of us, and we can make you. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments have no bearing on what I said above. Please read my post again. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Approach

mrg,

As one who is very sympathetic to your viewpoint on the matters being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), may I make an observation? Your approach comes across as blustery and I think you are hurting the cause more than you are helping it. This is not to say that you are not right. The question is, is it more important to heap scorn upon those whom you believe are wrong, or is it more important to try to work towards an eventual improvement in the situation?

Yes, these internationalists can be frustrating. Yes, they are frequently arrogant. But ask yourself: Is there a chance that they believe sincerely what they preach? I for one believe that many of them are sincere. (I also believe they're flat-out wrong, most of the time.) But if they are sincere, then they deserve to be approached with respect. And if they are sincere, and we do not approach them with respect, then this will only harden their positions, and make them less open to change. Additionally, in the long run, this battle can only be won if you build consensus. Some people who might agree with you, but who also shy away from conflict, may actually fail to lend you their support if they feel that you are unreasonable.

Anyway, it's not my place to tell you what to do. You have a sincere heart, and you're far more likely to follow that heart than an old fart's advice. But as one who wishes the best for your campaign, I thought I'd give you my 2¢. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 02:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

G'day Unschool,

I'm not blustery. It just seems to me that people have forgotten what "telling it like is" is like. Truth is not something that can be achieved by consensus you know ;O)

I don't have a "cause", only arguments and facts.

There is something you should know about me. Firstly I was raised to talk about ideas and not people. Secondly I was educated to give everyone the benefit of doubt. And thirdly I live in Australia where people still say what they think and not what they are expected to say.

I had started several sections and made a proposal, noting cogent points gathered from the previous four years of similar "discussions". Was this not an attempt to work towards eventual improvement? If someone continuously tels me that I am ignorant, directly or indirectly, while evading the questions, then I have nothing but scorn for such people.

Given the above, several participants in the discussion poured scorn on me personally, and on every English speaker in general, with Stephan not offering any advice to them on the error of their ways, which leads me to the the conclusion that he supports their opinion.

I question their sincerity. These same people have failed to address the points and facts I presented, and have never given me the benefit of doubt by engaging in the discussion. Have I received any respect? It is a basic tenet of any civilised society that a question is not answered by a question, and evaded by "looking away". One can evade looking into someone's eyes online also, and that only means one thing in most Western societies.

Look at their edit histories. Many are dominated by national flag-waving articles! There are constant edits to promote national POV at every opportunity. This is supposed to be an English reference work and not an arena for promotion of national pride. And yet that is exactly how very many editors have used the Wikipedia. I shudder to think what the native versions of Wikipedias are like if the English version is having these "discussions".

Yes, I know, you are going to ask me if I have the right to say what truth is, but at least I am trying, which is more then I can say for the Mu-ish attitude of Stephan. And yet he declares that he dislikes people who are not intellectually honest! I have nothing but scorn for this attitude and approach to discussion.

How can I build consensus when a major proponent of it fails to define it or accept the statements made in Wikipedia?! You try building a house for me if I fail to define what a house is! In any case, as I said, consensus is not possible. One can not change a language usage by consensus on Wikipedia any more then changing weather in Kansas, and I know we are definitely not in Kansas any more ;o)

I appreciate all advice since throughout my life I have found that the most unlikely people had something to teach me if I cared to listen ;O) Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject elections. I went into it expecting to just keep my seat and was astonished to end up with the lead role. I anticipate a rather busy six months :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Haut-Koeningsbourg castle, Alsace.

[edit] Thanks for your support

Mrg3105/Archive 4: I wish to thank you for your support in my unsuccessful bid at becoming an Assistant Coordinator for the Military history WikiProject. Rest assured that I will still be around, probably even more than before, and I have the utmost confidence in the abilities of the current and new coordinators. I might also mention that I am already planning on running again in August. As always, if you need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)