Talk:Stavka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia Portal
Stavka is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Changed Stalin from Head of State which is incorrect, Mikhail Kalinin was the Head of State being the President. Stalin was only General Secretary.

We definitely need to have the Russian (Cyrillic) name for Stavka.. to have only romanized version is not enough. -- Obradović Goran (talk 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

During 1941 Stavka changed three names. The third name was a combination of two fist, so if the first is translated "Stavka of the Main Command", then the third couldn' be translated "Stavka of the Supreme Chief Command". Either it must be "Supreme Main Command", or the first name must be "Chief Command". Colonel Glantz uses "Main Command" translation, I'd recommend to follow him.Fat yankey 03:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalized spelling

Capitalized spelling IS a mistake, because it implies abbreviation (like OKW or COSSAC), which it is not. And I think, those who bother to read this article has all the rights to know that.Fat yankey 13:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it wasn't written that way to be consistent with other Soviet institutions, or for some other reason?  —Michael Z. 2006-09-20 14:12 Z
Just because it is inconsistent with "other Soviet institutions". And in russian sources "Stavka" iz never capitalized. And competent western authors never use capitalized spelling. But I'm not going to waste my time on the editing war. Wanna keep it hat way? Be my guest.Fat yankey 15:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It's just that calling it a mistake is quite specific. Absent a specific reference to a dictionary or other authority, it seems more reliable to simply make note of the difference. Can you be more specific about "competent western authors never use capitalized spelling"? —Michael Z. 2006-09-20 16:09 Z
Leading american specialist of the war on the Eastern front and Red Army history is colonel David M.Glantz. Always uses correct spelling. Who else... Alan Clark, "Barbarossa" - correct spelling. Richard Overy, "Russia's War" - correct spelling. Antony Beevor, "Stalingrad" - correct spelling. More? Fat yankey 16:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Steven Zaloga capitalizes STAVKA in Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two (1984), so I guess it would be incorrect to say they never do. —Michael Z. 2006-09-20 21:00 Z
Zaloga doesn't qualify as a competent author. Wikipedia articles T-34 and BT contain numerous errors, originated from Zaloga's books.Fat yankey 03:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that many people familiar with the field would agree that Zaloga is incompetent. Please enlighten us about the numerous errors—I'm eager to improve those articles. —Michael Z. 2006-09-21 14:30 Z
Whatever the oppinion of that many people familiar with the field would be, it couldn't change the fact, that Zaloga never used primary sources (e.g. russian archives) when he wrote books on russian armor. He used secondary sources, which makes him, what... tertionary? I made some remarks on T-34 discussion page; 7 errors just in two sections. Fat yankey 04:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll have time to look over your comments on T-34 properly and respond or update the article in a day or two. It is rare to get detailed critical analysis, and it is welcome. Regarding Zaloga, do you know of any English-language authors who use primary sources? He does seem to be the best expert who writes on the subject, although I have been trying to find "The Unknown" at my local bookstores. —Michael Z. 2006-09-22 06:28 Z
Unfortunately, I don't know any english language author on the russian armor subject, who works with primary sources. The subject was deeply infested with various myths, we just started to uncover the real picture, so most of the works before 1990 should be considered as outdated. Seems it's the same story as with french armor - if you want something reliable on the subject, you have to by it in french. If you can read russian, I may tell you where to find the digital copy of "The Unknown T-34" Fat yankey 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Since much of this information is new, reliable and verifiable sources of it are hard to come by, and in English they simply don't exist. But we have to use something for a basis, in this case mostly Zaloga's writing as it represents the bulk of the English-language corpus from the last 25 years or so, and supplement as much as possible with new information from recent Russian-language publications.
My Russian is very poor, and reading is a chore, but I'd like to have a look (and there are a couple of online translators to English and Ukrainian which are sometimes helpful). You can send me an email through my user page. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 03:20 Z

[edit] Split article

There needs to be two articles:

  • Russian Imperial Stavka
  • Soviet Stavka

although both called by the same term, they were vastly different, never mind belonging to different countries--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)