This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Can anybody explain what the words: "The T-34 model (only a few of which were equipped with 76 mm tubes), was out-ranged by German Tiger and Panther tanks but was faster and more manoeuvrable." mean? Did I understand correct that "76 mm tubes" mean the T34 main gun, and if that is the case, what gun other T34 were equipped with?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 03:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
sounds like a "mistake". 76 mm gun was standart at this time, wasnt it? Blablaaa ( talk) 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I am somewhat bemused with the infobox figures. Although German strength and casualties are clamed to be taken from Frieser, they are in direct contradiction with the numbers provided by one of Frieser's co-authors, Chris Bellamy. He speaks about ~70 German divisions involved in the Battle of Kursk, and about more than a half a million killed, seriously wounded, captured or missing, with overall German-Soviet ratio of 1 to 1.5. ("Absolute war", p. 594). In addition, the number of troops contradicts to what Glantz says (he speaks about a million of German troops.) Although the way the infobox is organized now is definitely a progress, the numbers need to be fixed.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 03:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Paul i added the detailed casualties figures from dapis sandbox. i think its ok so? what do u think ?
The section now is unsourced. Maybe we write a new one or update the recent with some citiations. Frieser has the opinion that Kursk can not be seen as a "turning point" and sees the strategic significanse as limited. He also explains that the situation before and after kursk were no really different. I think its worth to mention this. So i would appreciate help. Blablaaa ( talk) 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
We should expand this section, with a little comparison of the armor and the airforces. Blablaaa ( talk) 11:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
According to http://ww2stats.com/index.html losses of German forces (KIA+WIA+MIA) on Eastern Front during May-June 1943 are 7891+30375+3049+6682+28047+837=76881. Losses during July-August 1943 are 34874+147053+14674+33962+134263+20272=385098. The difference is ~310 thousand, almost twice higher than stated in current article (170k).
http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_tow43.html
Combined losses of Army Groups South and Center during July-August 1943 are 325 thousand (KIA+WIA+MIA).
http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec43.html
Olvegg ( talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The section of Soviet casualties lists 863,303 - 1.677,000 men (KIA/WIA?). How is that possible considered that the total no. of German + Russian casualties would amount to over 2000,000 men? Consider Stalingrad as the most bloody battle in history. Moreover, the page on List of battles by casualties only states 257,125–388,000 combined casualties for Kursk. I think this part has been maliciously vandalized. Assassin3577 ( talk) 05:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"likly to low" becaus many buried russian soldiers were not even enlisted men, krivoshev lists only enlisted men thats why his overall casualtiesfigures for ww2 are to low, there are at least 1 million men missing .FACT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 07:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not round the Soviet casualties up to a round trillion. That is a far more realistic estimate isn't it? I'm almost positive it must have taken a million Russians to kill a single German, and there is no chance in Hell they could ever destroy one of the invincible German tanks. Come to think of it, did the Russians even win the war? Maybe Germany did in fact occupy Moscow?
THE FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE ARE LUDICROUS!!!! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.185.172.119 (
talk)
16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
While understanding that, for some editors, English is not their first language (and also noting that their skills with it are far beyond my ability in anything other than English); The quality of this article is being damaged by very poor copy editing.
German, Russian, Red Army are all names, and should be capitalised; as should all month names. The manual of style for date formatting suggests that articles keep a consistent style. In this article, it is 18 July 1943, not the 18th July, 1943.
References, by convention, go after commas, and periods.
Please take the time to preview your edits before saving them. Spelling mistakes have often been of words that are correctly spelled elsewhere in the same edit.
I have just spent some time cleaning up several dozens of avoidable issues. Some edits are so riddled with issues that I'll start reverting them entirely instead of repairing them, as they damage the article more than they improve it.
Do not feel that your contributions are not valued, but it is primarily the responsibility of the contributing editor to ensure their additions are of the quality required. Hohum 05:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I must agree that quite a bit of work is necessary on this article to clean it up grammatically (I won't even begin to go into the numerous POV issues - this is something the editors and peer-review will have to address-I just hope no student uses it in its current state for some school report). There are problems with even the opening paragraph as of Memorial Day 2010. Please set aside all pro-German and pro-Russian bias, and work towards a balanced, believable and GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT article. This is the English Wiki and must conform to well-written English. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan
This myth is one of the biggest of the entire war and historians like overy and glantz were punked.
All historians which used only russian sources are totally useless. Overy simple cited rotmistrovs fantasy number of 350. the number of 350 german tank losses was introduced by rotmistrov himself. Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Band 6 has an complete chapter about the fantasy stories of rotmistrov and how lazy and unskilled historians like overy are coping this statements. The best example is glantz who is cited with using the 350 ^^ and is cited for 343 overall german tank losses ^^. Thats why its better to name the secondary source and the used primary source so we can avoid that users like dapi search historians which got punked by one primary ( which is allready descredited even by russian historians)and present them like many different historians with the same opinion.... . no source which cites rotmistrov for numbers ( some other things are ok ) should be allowed for wiki. also this sources can not be used for the outcome tactical stalemate , lol ? Blablaaa ( talk) 09:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
dapi please take your books and tell me which source is cited for the 350 german tanks. Blablaaa ( talk) 14:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
on the german wiki i try to include the participating armies in the text. i think we can do the same here. can anyone take a look on the german version and give an opinion . i think it looks better and the reader can see it faster. [ [2] Blablaaa ( talk) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have simplified the presentation so that it's easier to maintain. ( Hohum @) 22:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that the OOB is unnecessary clutter given that there's a dedicated article (whose small number of views suggest that this isn't a topic of interest to many readers), but whatever - I personally like orbats but generally write them as text in the article and have a separate OOB article. It would be helpful if the German terms were translated into their common English-language terms (eg, 'Panzergrenadierdivision' is normally referred to as 'Panzer Grenadier Division' and 'Panzerdivision' 'Panzer Division' - I presume that 'Heeresgruppenreserve' is 'Army Group Reserve' and it should be translated as such to prevent readers from thinking that this was a single unit rather than a group of units). Nick-D ( talk) 11:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
On another note. I noticed that the soviet aircraft casualties for the entire battle have the upper estimate of 4,209 with the note (nb 10) "Luftwaffe claims until 24th autumn, note: this excludes accidents and aircraft losses due to anti air". For the same reasons my earlier comment, the number is nonsense (I also think there is a typo and should say 24th August). According to Krivosheev (see citeation 16 in the article), total soviet air casualties from all causes for all of 1943 are 26,700 (of which only 11,700 were claimed to be combat casualties). The first number directly leads to the number of available aircraft available in 1944, so is quite reliable and not disputed. The luftwaffe claim sounds silly and I do not think it should be in the infobox. D2306 ( talk) 19:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
i will take a look and translate it Blablaaa ( talk) 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Frieser is supporting this claim. I shortend the text. He explains that german claims are pretty reliable. Regarding the battle of britian dont be confused with claims of pilots and published claims. Frieser talks about the claims of pilots which were approved by superios, he dont talks about any propaganda numbers published by germany. I wasnt there i dont know how much soviet lost. When i only look german losses then soviet ones sound resonable for me. When we assume same loss ratios for citadel and counter attacks we get the 4000. so it sounds ok. What do u suggest ? Blablaaa ( talk) 17:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The soviet aircraft losses are a special problem. No complete soviet figures are avaiable so frieser used another source in this particular case. Again i ask for anthoer source. i have none Blablaaa ( talk) 17:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I try to make it short: Igors figures ( actually this are the immediate wartime propaganda numbers published by the soviets) are 7 times !!! higher than the accepted figures of Glatz Frieser Zetterling Frankson and and and. This is nothing else than an extraordinary claim, such a claim needs heavy reference. User igor brings russian website with glorious battle descriptions. Most of his sides are fanboysites. Nothing more than forums. I explained this issue to user Igor , he is not understanding the problem. I will revert every edit of him which includes extraordinary claims without extraordinary reference. Regarding the issue, the numbers a-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)re indeed absolute nonsense, for the battle of kursk they exceed the number of german troops participating. I write this to make sure that my reverts are no edit warring, i only delete blatant vandalism. Blablaaa ( talk) 16:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
To igor. I can read your sites. And iam not blind. A simple text hosted on any website is no reliable source! Blablaaa ( talk) 21:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Blablaaa ( talk) 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I checked the two sources again. The fun is over now. The first website is citing another website, where a simple text is published without any note regarding participatin of any historians. The second seems to be kind of wartime letter or somethingelse with date of 23 july 43 . Guys are u serious????? For me: the discussion is over i will start to go to admin board cause of vandalism for any new inapt source. The issue is explained if somebody brings another website for the claims he tries to disrupt wiki. This is not the kindergarden. We are on Wiki and we use the best possible source for claims. My job is not to check every new website which is brought by igor, because hes simply googling. There are tons of websites which quote other websites. He can continue this game very long. Iam out of the game. I will revert the vandalism and go to the administration board if neccessary. Rediculious.... Blablaaa ( talk) 14:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Read what is written above and than read whats written in the article about reliable sources. Until u have done this please consider not editing the article Blablaaa ( talk) 20:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
please stop change my words. i say soviet propaganda is soviet propaganda. 70000 dead germans during zitadelle are soviet wartime propaganda, totally irrelevant which website prints this numbers, they are still propaganda numbers, is this so hard to understand? u brought no reputable sources.... Blablaaa ( talk) 03:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Sooo now i took a look on your KOSAVE, iam not sure why u broad this up but the study contradicts u and supports me:
"""(3) Differences in Casualties. From 5-18 July, Soviet casualties were much greater than German. Relative to initial onhand, total casualties amounted to 23 percent of the Soviet force and 12 percent of the German force. The greatest differences were in KIA and CMIA. Overall, the Soviets lost (KIA) nearly 5 men killed for every German killed and 24 CMIA for every German CMIA.
(4) Daily Casualty Rates. If daily average combat casualty rates are averaged over the 5 July-18 July period, the overall Soviet rate was 4 times the German rate.
(6) Fractional Exchange Ratios. Soviet/German FER results computed in favor of Germans, based on both KCMIA casualties and on combat casualties, show that the Germans almost always had an advantage (FER >1). The KCMIA FER exceeds 4.00 on 9 days. However, the historical battle outcome suggests that this was not enough to achieve a decisive victory."""
"""Tank Losses. Total Soviet tank losses (204) are over 20 times German (9). The vast majority of today’s tank conflicts are near Prokhorovka, where the counterattacking Soviet 29 Tank Corps, 18 Tank Corps, and 2 Gds Tank Corps lose a total of 144 tanks against �Leibstandarte SS, Totenkopf SS, and Das Reich, which lose a total of 6 tanks (4 Pz III and 5 Pz IV). Highest Soviet tank losses (88) are in 29 Tank Corps, which loses 60 T-34s and 28 T-70s. Highest German tank losses (four) are in Leibstandarte SS. Most of the Soviet losses are T-34s (119), T-70 (61), and MK-4 Churchill (13). Recorded as damaged in action today are 89 German tanks and 210 Soviet tanks."""
this are the naked numbers for the big legendary victory of the red army at prokhorovka (where the red army stoped the german offensive and destroyed the fighting power of the SS divisions) . Blablaaa ( talk) 04:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
91.000 prisoners in Stalingrad are also propaganda ?
http://9may.ru/04.02.1943/inform/m3913
There are many views of Prokhorovka. By Rotmistrov the Germans lost only on 12 July 1943 against his army 10.000 dead soldiers and 350 tanks.
http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/rotmistrov2/04.html (see "Только за 12 июля в боях с 5-й гвардейской танковой армией противник лишился свыше 350 танков и потерял более 10 тысяч человек убитыми") In Wikipedia must be ALL POINTS OF VIEW. igor piryazev-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
But you are not a king of wikipedia. You can not improove your opinion with references.
soviet point of view 5-23 july ( http://bdsa.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2119&Itemid=29)
german 5-13 july
There are still 10 days. igor piryazev-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
"Does not look" is not proof. And this references ? Also propaganda ?
http://www.tankobzor.org/glava7part2.html (see "За время боев с 5 по 23 июля немецко-фашистская армия потеряла 2900 танков, 195 самоходно-артиллерийских установок, 1392 самолета, свыше 5000 автомобилей.")
http://wwii-soldat.narod.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm (see: "Идем дальше. Уже давно и довольно хорошо известно, во всяком случае людям, знакомым не понаслышке с военным делом, что наступающая на подготовленную оборону противника сторона несет значительно большие потери по сравнению с обороняющимися. Дело в том, что находящийся в обороне солдат сидит в укрытии (окоп, траншея, блиндаж и т. п.), а наступающий на него солдат лишен такого преимущества, он должен передвигаться по открытой местности под огнем противника. Так у кого же больше вероятности уцелеть в бою? Оставляем вопрос открытым, пусть читатель сам на него отвечает. А этот факт очернители нашего боевого прошлого почему-то не хотят принимать во внимание. А ведь это – аксиома, не требующая доказательств. В этой связи позволительно спросить такого рода «историков», принимающих на веру домыслы наших бывших противников, а почему же тогда наступающая сторона понесла вдвое меньшие потери, нежели сторона обороняющаяся? Тем более, что ни в танках, ни в артиллерии наступающий превосходства не имел, да и господство в воздухе в ходе сражения немецкая авиация утратила.
Теперь посмотрим на проблему с другой стороны. Сами немцы признают, что их танковые и моторизованные дивизии понесли большие потери в танках. Не помогла им и новая техника, на которую они возлагали такие надежды. Так, их танковые корпуса, составлявшие основу ударных группировок, которые должны были сокрушить советскую оборону, во время наступления на Курской дуге потеряли от 60 до 80 % своих танков. Вследствие этого почти половина немецких танковых и моторизованных дивизий утратили свою боеспособность. А ведь танк уничтожить несравнимо сложнее, нежели человека. Так вот в отношении потерь немецко-фашистских войск в ходе их наступательной операции на Курской дуге, поскольку точные данные о немецких потерях отсутствуют (и это, несмотря на знаменитую немецкую педантичность!), мы предлагаем читателю сделать выводы самому. И наконец, в заключение следует сказать – немецко-фашистское командование отлично осознавало (об этом свидетельствуют многочисленные документы и другие источники), что провал операции «Цитадель» и переход советских войск в контрнаступление означали коренной перелом в войне с Советским Союзом и окончательный переход стратегической инициативы к советской стороне. ") igor piryazev-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
But I can confirm: theyare normal. I dont say "the germans lost 70.000 dead" I say "According to sovit information..." Must I give still 100 references ? igor piryazev--
Igor Piryazev (
talk)
21:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
But I dont must do it. There are soviet/russian infos. I dont must talk about every reference and proove you, that they are in order. Let it be. The readers must not believe them. There are reliable sources and if you say "no" you must PROOVE it. I dont have a time for such games. Every source could be "unreliable". Frieser is so for me, but i dont delete them. igor piryazev--
Igor Piryazev (
talk)
07:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I know it, but also allied sources are false. Read Montgomery. 300.000 german losses in Normandy were also WARTIME estimation and today there are already 400.000 losses. I say it still one time: RUSSIAN HISTORIANS BELIEVE INFORMBÜRO ALSO TODAY. There are 2 examples:
1) Korsun pocket
infos of 1944: 55.000 dead and 18.200 captured. ( http://9may.ru/19.02.1944/inform/m4596)
today also 55.000 dead and 18.000 captured ( http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1944.html#5)
2) Stalingrad 91.000 prisoners. It is topically also today. ( http://9may.ru/05.02.1943/inform/m3913)
And there are a lot of such examples. igor piryazev-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
And still 2 examples:
3) Vienna Operation 1945
1945: 32 divisions smashed and 130.000 prisoners ( http://9may.ru/15.04.1945/inform/m4233)
today also ( http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1945.html#14)
4) Debrecen Operation
1944: 42.000 prisoners ( http://9may.ru/30.11.1944/inform/m2804)
also today: ( http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1944.html#49)
I hope this is enough. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
On another note. I noticed that the soviet aircraft casualties for the entire battle have the upper estimate of 4,209 with the note (nb 10) "Luftwaffe claims until 24th autumn, note: this excludes accidents and aircraft losses due to anti air". For the same reasons my earlier comment, the number is nonsense (I also think there is a typo and should say 24th August). According to Krivosheev (see citeation 16 in the article), total soviet air casualties from all causes for all of 1943 are 26,700 (of which only 11,700 were claimed to be combat casualties). The first number directly leads to the number of available aircraft available in 1944, so is quite reliable and not disputed. The luftwaffe claim sounds silly and I do not think it should be in the infobox.
D2306 (
talk)
19:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There are TWO VERSIONS: GERMAN AND RUSSIAN. You can not speak about russian infos with german point of view. Certyinly the are different. Readers must deside whom believe. But this reference is no wartime:
I mean the whole battle of Normandy untill 25 August 1944. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
i will take a look and translate it Blablaaa ( talk) 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read this (
http://www.novoemnenie.ru/rassl/14p.html)
ПОТЕРИ ВЕРМАХТА И ВОЙСК СС
К настоящему времени не существует достаточно надежных цифр потерь немецкой армии, полученных прямым статистическим подсчетом. Объясняется это отсутствием по разным причинам достоверных исходных статистических материалов о немецких потерях.
Более или менее ясна картина относительно числа военнопленных вермахта на советско-германском фронте. По российским источникам советскими войсками было пленено 3172300 солдат вермахта, из них в лагерях НКВД находилось 2388443 немца. По подсчетам немецких историков, в советских лагерях военнопленных только немецких военнослужащих было около 3,1 млн. Расхождение, как видите, примерно в 0,7 млн. чел. Объясняется это расхождение различиями в оценке числа погибших в плену немцев: по российским архивным документам, в советском плену погибло 356700 немцев, а по оценке немецких исследователей — примерно 1,1 млн. чел. Представляется, что более достоверной является российская цифра погибших в плену немцев, а недостающие 0,7 млн. пропавших без вести и не вернувшихся из плена немцев на самом деле погибли не в плену, а на поле боя.
Что касается погибших солдат вермахта и войск СС на советско-германском фронте, то тут положение гораздо хуже.
Абсолютное большинство публикаций, посвященных расчетам боевых демографических потерь вермахта и войск СС, опираются на данные центрального бюро (отдела) учета потерь личного состава вооруженных сил, входящего в Генеральный штаб верховного главнокомандования. «Чрезмерщики» оценивают эти данные как абсолютно достоверные. Но при ближайшем рассмотрении оказалось, что мнение о высокой достоверности сведений этого отдела сильно преувеличено. Так, немецкий историк Р. Оверманс в статье «Человеческие жертвы Второй мировой войны в Германии» пришел к выводу, что «... каналы поступления информации в вермахте не обнаруживают той степени достоверности, которую приписывают им некоторые авторы». В качестве примера он сообщает, что «одно служебное заключение отдела потерь в штабе вермахта, относящееся к 1944 году, документально подтвердило, что потери, которые были понесены в ходе польской, французской и норвежской кампаний и выявление которых не представляло никаких технических трудностей, были почти вдвое выше, чем первоначально сообщалось».
Нужно сказать, что недостоверность немецких сообщений о потерях была очевидна еще во время войны. Несколько примеров занижения немцами своих потерь приводит в своей книге «Войны и народонаселение Европы» Б. Урланис. В частности, он пишет, что 11 декабря 1941 г. Гитлер в рейхстаге заявил, что с 22 июня по 1 декабря 1941г. германская армия потеряла 195648 убитыми и пропавшими без вести, что ненамного меньше, чем зафиксировано в отделе учета потерь штаба вермахта (257900 убитых и пропавших без вести). «Новый международный ежегодник» за 1941 г. назвал эти цифры «крайне фантастическими» и привел при этом исчисление американских военных наблюдателей, по которому на 11 декабря 1941 г. потери немцев убитыми определялись в 1300 тыс. чел., что более чем в 5 раз превышает данные вермахта. Даже в Германии никто не верил официальным данным о потерях германской армии. Б. Урланис приводит выдержку из статьи в шведском журнале «Векку-журнален», опубликованной в апреле 1943 г. и в которой отмечалось: «Каждый немец думает, что если бы официальные цифры о размерах потерь были бы верными, то борьба против СССР уже давно была бы закончена».
Явное недоверие вызывают сведения отдела потерь о числе погибших немецких солдат в ходе разгрома армий группы «Центр» Красной Армией под Москвой: цифры потерь вермахта за декабрь 1941 года и за январь 1942 года почти в полтора раза меньше, чем в июле и августе 1941 года, когда вермахт почти беспрепятственно двигался по советской земле.
И еще один пример. По данным отдела потерь вермахта в январе 1943 года погибло 37 тыс. немецких солдат, а непосредственный участник Сталинградской битвы, занимавший в то время высокие посты в немецких войсках, в том числе начальника штаба 17-го армейского корпуса, генерал-майор Г. Дерр в книге «Поход на Сталинград» (сборник «Роковые решения») пишет, что «только за период с 24 января по 2 февраля 1943 г. погибло более 100 тыс. человек». Кроме того, в эти же дни была прорвана блокада Ленинграда, и в ходе боев погибла не одна тысяча солдат вермахта.
В целом сведения отдела потерь вермахта не могут служить исходными данными для расчета потерь вооруженных сил Германии в Великой Отечественной войне.
Существует другая статистика потерь — статистика захоронений солдат вермахта. Согласно приложению к закону ФРГ «О сохранении мест захоронения» общее число немецких солдат, находящихся в зафиксированных захоронениях на территории Советского Союза и восточноевропейских стран, составляет 3 млн. 226 тыс. чел. Эта цифра может быть принята в качестве исходной для расчета демографических потерь вермахта, однако она нуждается в корректировке.
Во-первых, эта цифра учитывает только захоронения немцев, а в составе вермахта воевало большое число солдат других национальностей: австрийцы (из них погибло 270 тыс. чел.), судетские немцы и эльзасцы (погибло 230 тыс. чел.) и представители других национальностей и государств (погибло 357 тыс. чел.). Из общего числа погибших солдат вермахта не немецкой национальности на долю советско-германского фронта приходится 75—80%, т. е. 0,6—0,7 млн. чел.
Во-вторых, эта цифра относится к началу 90-х годов прошлого столетия. За прошедшее с той поры время поиск немецких захоронений в России, странах СНГ и странах Восточной Европы продолжался. А появлявшиеся на эту тему сообщения были недостаточно информативны. Так, например, российская ассоциация военных мемориалов, созданная в 1992 году, сообщила, что за 10 лет своего существования передала Немецкому союзу по уходу за воинскими захоронениями сведения о захоронениях 400 тыс. солдат вермахта. Однако были ли это вновь обнаруженные захоронения или они уже учтены в цифре 3 млн. 226 тыс. — не ясно. К сожалению, обобщенной статистики вновь обнаруженных захоронений солдат вермахта найти не удалось. Ориентировочно можно принять, что число вновь обнаруженных за последние 10 лет захоронений солдат вермахта находится в пределах 0,2—0,4 млн. чел.
В-третьих, многие захоронения погибших солдат вермахта на советской земле исчезли. Например, участник войны Александр Лебединцев в книге «Отцы-командиры» приводит рассказ одного из местных жителей, что сил на захоронение немецких трупов после боев не было, поэтому труппы сбрасывали в глубокую промоину и, обрушив стенку промоины, засыпали их. В период весеннего половодья промоину размыло, и остатки немецких захоронений унесли в реку талые воды. Кроме того, как отметил Похлебкин В.В. в книге «Великая война и несостоявшийся мир», в лесах и болотах Новгородчины, Литвы и Полесья до сих пор существуют сотни тысяч безымянных могил немецких солдат, погибших в боях с Красной Армией, особенно во время весеннего наступления советских войск в 1944 г. Ориентировочно в таких исчезнувших и безымянных могилах могло быть захоронено 0,4—0,6 млн. солдат вермахта.
В-четвертых, в эти данные не включены захоронения немецких солдат, убитых в боях с советскими войсками на территории Германии и западноевропейских стран. По данным Р. Оверманса, только за последние три весенних месяца войны погибло порядка 1 млн. чел. В целом на германской земле и в западноевропейских странах в боях с Красной Армией погибло примерно 1,2—1,5 млн. солдат вермахта.
Наконец, в-пятых, в число захороненных вошли и солдаты вермахта, умершие «естественной» смертью (0,1—0,2 млн. чел.).
В целом демографические потери вермахта на советско-германском фронте составляют 5,4 ... 6,3 млн. чел., из них 0,4 млн. погибли в плену.
Эта оценка согласуется с цифрами, приведенными Гитлером 16 марта 1945 года в рейхстаге: Германия в войне потеряла 12,5 млн. чел., из них половина убитыми. Учитывая, что по данным немецких историков потери немецкого гражданского населения погибшими к тому времени составляли около 400 тыс. чел, а на Западном фронте было убито около 300 тыс. немецких солдат, то, выходит, что к 16 марта 1945 г. на советско-германском фронте погибло примерно 5,5 млн. немецких солдат.
-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 15:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I translate with "Promt"
LOSSES ВЕРМАХТА AND ARMIES СС
By this time there are no enough the reliable figures of losses of German army received by direct statistical calculation. It speaks absence for various reasons authentic initial statistical materials about German losses.
More or the picture concerning number of prisoners of war вермахта on the Soviet-German front is less clear. On the Russian sources the Soviet armies had been captivated 3172300 soldiers вермахта, from them in camps of People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs there were 2388443 Germans. By estimates of German historians, in the Soviet prisoner-of-war camps only German military men there was about 3,1 million Divergence, as you can see, approximately in 0,7 million people this divergence distinctions in a death-roll estimation in a captivity of Germans Speaks: under the Russian archival documents, in Soviet to a captivity 356700 Germans were lost, and according to German researchers — about 1,1 million people It is represented that more authentic is the Russian figure of victims in a captivity of Germans, and missing 0,7 million Germans who have missing and not come back from a captivity actually were lost not in a captivity, and in the field of fight.
As to the lost soldiers вермахта and armies СС on the Soviet-German front then position is much worse.
Overwhelming majority of the publications devoted to calculations of fighting demographic losses вермахта and armies СС, lean against the data of the central bureau (department) of the account of losses of staff of the armed forces entering into the Joint Staff of general headquarters.« Чрезмерщики »estimate this data as absolutely authentic. But it has on closer examination appeared that the opinion on high reliability of data of this department is strongly exaggerated. So, the German historian R.Overmans in article« Human a victim of the Second World War in Germany »has come to a conclusion that«... Channels of receipt of the information in вермахте do not find out that degree of reliability which is attributed it by some authors ». As an example he informs that« one office conclusion of department of losses in a staff вермахта, concerning by 1944, has documentary confirmed that losses which have been suffered during the Polish, French and Norwegian campaigns and which revealing did not represent any technical difficulties, were almost twice above, than was originally informed ».
It is necessary to tell that unauthenticity of German messages on losses was obvious even during war. Some examples of understating by Germans of the losses result in the book «Wars and the population of Europe» B.Urlanis. In particular, he writes that on December, 11th, 1941 Hitler in рейхстаге has declared that from June, 22nd till December, 1st 1941г. The German army has lost 195648 killed and missing persons that ненамного, than is fixed in department of the account of losses of a staff вермахта (257900 killed and missing persons). «The new international year-book» for 1941 named these figures "extremely fantastic" and has resulted thus calculation of the American military observers on which for December, 11th, 1941 of loss of Germans by the killed were defined in 1300 That more than in 5 times exceeds the data вермахта. Even in Germany nobody trusted the official data about losses of the German army. B.Urlanis results endurance from article in the Swedish magazine "Vekku-zhurnalen", published in April, 1943 and in which it was marked: «Each German thinks that if official figures about the sizes of losses would be true struggle against the USSR would be finished for a long time already».
Obvious mistrust is caused by data of department of losses on a death-roll of German soldiers during defeat of armies of group "Center" by Red Army near Moscow: вермахта for December, 1941 and for January, 1942 almost in one and a half time it is less than figure of losses, than in July and August, 1941 when вермахт almost free moved on the Soviet earth.
And one more example. According to department of losses вермахта in January, 1943 was lost 37 thousand German soldiers, and the direct participant of Stalingradsky fight holding at that time high posts in German armies, including the chief of a staff of 17th army case, the major general G.Derr in the book «the Campaign on Stalingrad» (the collection «Fatal decisions») writes that «only from January, 24th on February, 2nd, 1943 was lost more than 100 thousand persons». Besides, the same days blockade of Leningrad has been broken through, and during fights one thousand soldiers вермахта was lost not.
As a whole data of department of losses вермахта cannot serve as the initial data for calculation of losses of armed forces of Germany in the Great Patriotic War.
There is other statistics of losses — statistics of burial places of soldiers вермахта. According to the appendix to the law of Germany «About preservation of places of a burial place» total number of the German soldiers who are in fixed burial places in territory of Soviet Union and the East Europe countries, makes 3 million 226 thousand people This figure can be accepted as initial for calculation of demographic losses вермахта, however it requires updating.
First, this figure considers only burial places of Germans, and in structure вермахта the great number of soldiers of other nationalities was at war: the Austrians (from them was lost 270 thousand people), судетские Germans and эльзасцы (was lost 230 thousand people) and representatives of other nationalities and the states (was lost 357 thousand people). From total number of the lost soldiers вермахта not on a share of the Soviet-German front 75—80 % are necessary a German nationality, i.e. 0,6-0,7 million people
Secondly, this figure concerns the beginning of 90th years of last century. For the past since then time search of German burial places in Russia, the CIS countries and countries of Eastern Europe proceeded. And messages appearing on this theme were insufficiently informative. So, for example, the Russian association of military memorials created in 1992, has informed that for 10 years of the existence has transferred to the German union on care of military burial places of data on burial places of 400 thousand soldiers вермахта. Whether However there were it again found out burial places or they are already considered in million 226 thousand figure 3 — not clearly. Unfortunately, the generalised statistics of again found out burial places of soldiers вермахта it was not possible to find. It is roughly possible to accept that the number of burial places of soldiers again found out over the last 10 years вермахта is in limits of 0,2-0,4 million people
Thirdly, many burial places of the lost soldiers вермахта on the Soviet earth have disappeared. For example, the participant of war Alexander Lebedintsev in the book "Fathers-commanders" results the story of one of local residents that forces on a burial place of German corpses after fights were not, therefore troupes dumped in a deep gully and, having brought down a gully wall, fell asleep them. In a spring high water a gully has washed away, and the rests of German burial places have carried away thawed snow in the river. Besides, as has noted Pohlebkin V.V. in the book «Great war and not taken place world», in woods and bogs of Novgorodchiny, Lithuania and Polesye till now exist hundred thousand anonymous tombs of the German soldiers who were lost in fights with Red Army, especially during spring approach of the Soviet armies in 1944 Roughly in such disappeared and anonymous tombs could be buried 0,4-0,6 million soldiers вермахта.
Fourthly, burial places of the German soldiers killed in fights with the Soviet armies in territory of Germany and the West European countries are not included in this data. According to R.Overmansa, only for last three spring months of war was lost an order of 1 million people As a whole on the German earth and in the West European countries in fights with Red Army was lost about 1,2-1,5 million soldiers вермахта.
At last, fifthly, the number of the buried included also soldiers вермахта, died "natural" death (0,1-0,2 million people).
As a whole demographic losses вермахта on the Soviet-German front make 5,4... 6,3 million people, from them 0,4 million were lost in a captivity.
This estimation will be co-ordinated with the figures resulted by Hitler on March, 16th, 1945 in рейхстаге: Germany in war has lost 12,5 million people, from them half killed. Considering that according to German historians of loss of German civilians victims by then made about 400 thousand foreheads, and on the Western front that has been killed about 300 thousand German soldiers, leaves that by March, 16th, 1945 on the Soviet-German front was lost about 5,5 million German soldiers. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 15:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This is RELIABEL SOURCE ( http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.html)
This book war written AFTER 1981 ( http://goga-hidoyatov.narod.ru/soderj.html)
is it enough ? and you can not delete my references. I and Dimowik against you and Balablaa. 2 aganist 2. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Very funny. You can find this infos in EVERY russian book and on EVERY internet page. Must I giive you still 10 references ? In my source you can read the literature (1970-1980). Can you read it ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 07:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
And your Frieser is unreliable. He will ctiticed even by german historians. His infos are funny even fpr german propaganda. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 07:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Or are this sources also wartime propaganda?
http://www.biograph-soldat.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm
http://www.calend.ru/holidays/0/0/530/
-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 08:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2010-1-132
Den Kämpfen 1943-1944 in der Sowjetunion, dem Hauptthema des Bandes, widmet Karl-Heinz Frieser fast 500 Seiten. Vor allem seine Darstellungen provozieren eine Fülle von kritischen Fragen. Frieser konfrontiert den Leser mit längst überkommen geglaubten Weisen der Militärgeschichtsschreibung. Aus der reinen Binnensicht der Militärs werden hier Kriegswerkzeuge einander gegenüber gestellt, die dann „fechten“. In immer gleichem Schema bemüht sich Frieser, die jeweiligen Kräfteverhältnisse vor einer Schlacht zu erläutern, die Taktiken zu erklären, die Verläufe gerafft zu schildern und die Ergebnisse zu fixieren. Er blendet aber fast den gesamten Kontext der Kriegführung aus. Man erfährt kaum etwas über die Logistik und die Versorgungsfragen der jeweiligen gigantischen Armeen, nichts über die konkreten Besatzungsräume, in denen sie agierten. Kaum ein Wort wird über die Rückzugsverbrechen der Wehrmacht und ihren Kontext verloren. Die millionenhafte Vertreibung, Zwangsevakuierung und Aushungerung der sowjetischen Zivilbevölkerung und die planmäßige Verwüstung ganzer Regionen bleibt außerhalb des von ihm gezeichneten Bildes. Nur Wegner skizziert einige Grundlinien (S. 256-268). Frieser charakterisiert die deutsche Wehrmacht als professionell geführte Truppe, die schließlich nicht nur der Roten Armee, sondern vor allem Hitler zum Opfer gefallen sei. Er bezeichnet diese Situation gar als Zweifrontenkrieg (S. 565). Frieser schreibt fast ausschließlich aus der Nachkriegsperspektive deutscher Generäle, insbesondere des von ihm offensichtlich hoch verehrten Erich von Mansteins. Ihrer militärischen ‚Vernunft‘ wird immer wieder der ‚irrationale‘ Hitler gegenüber gestellt. Es bedarf der Lektüre der Abschnitte von Wegner, um dieses Zerrbild wesentlich zu differenzieren. Frieser kritisiert sowjetische Quellen scharf, deutsche hingegen kaum. Manche seiner Zahlenangaben erscheinen daher zweifelhaft.[1] Zwar korrigiert Frieser einige Legenden, die sich um wesentliche Schlachten ranken, und das Ausmaß der Kämpfe erscheint schier unglaublich mit Millionen gefallener Soldaten. Aber der Versuch, den Anteil der deutschen Generalität an der verbrecherischen Kriegführung zu minimieren, kann nicht überzeugen. Die salvatorische Klausel, dass wirtschafts- und besatzungspolitische Fragestellungen in anderen Bänden der Reihe untersucht würden (S. XIV), vermag dieses Manko nicht wett zu machen, zumal es für die Jahre 1943 und 1944 in den Bänden des MGFA auch nicht umgesetzt wurde.
By german infos the Germans lost in the Battle of Kursk 360.000 and not 140.000. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
360.000 even by Boris sokolov ( http://militera.lib.ru/research/sokolov1/03.html)
Таким образом, германские людские потери в Курской битве можно оценить примерно в 360 000 убитых, пропавших без вести, раненых и больных, но никак не в 500 000. Потери люфтваффе тоже были гораздо ниже. В июле и августе 1943 г., согласно данным источников из Германского военного архива во Фрайбурге, потери на Востоке составили только 1030 самолетов, и даже на всех театрах общие потери достигали не более чем 3213 боевых машин.{33} Таким образом, советская версия в 3700 самолетов противника, уничтоженных в Курской битве, совершенно абсурдна. Эта цифра основывается на донесениях советских авиационных командиров военного времени,{34} где потери противника преувеличивались в несколько раз. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I translate Sokolov.
Official figures of the Soviet human losses and losses in tanks and planes in Kursk fight have been published only in 1993 {30} the German losses have been exaggerated by the Soviet historians several times long before that. By their estimation, German losses have made about 500 thousand soldiers and officers, 1500 tanks and assault tools and more than 3700 planes. {31} these figures are very far from the validity. German losses in a manpower on all East front, according to the information given to the Supreme command вермахта (ОКВ), in July and August, 1943 have made 68 800 killed, 34 800 missing persons both 434 000 wounded men and patients. {32} German losses on the Kursk arch can be estimated in 2/3 from losses on East front as during this period fierce fights occurred also in Donetsk pool, around Smolensk and on northern sector of the front (in area Mgi). Thus, the German human losses in Kursk fight can be estimated approximately in 360 000 killed, missing persons, wounded men and patients, but in any way in 500 000. Losses люфтваффе too were much more low. In July and August, 1943, it agree to the data of sources from the German military archive in Freiburg, losses in the east have made only 1030 planes, and even on all theatres the general losses reached no more than 3213 fighting vehicles. {33} thus, the Soviet version in 3700 planes of the opponent destroyed in Kursk fight, is absolutely absurd. This figure is based on reports of the Soviet aviation commanders of a wartime, {34} where losses of the opponent were exaggerated several times. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You can see it.
http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14
literature from 1960-1980
Лит.: История второй мировой войны 1939-1945, т. 7, М., 1976; История Вел. Отечеств. войны Сов. Союза. 1941-1945, т. 3, М., 1964; Битва на Курской дуге, М., 1975; Колтунов Г. А, Соловьев Б. Г., Курская битва, М., 1983; Курская битва. Воспоминания, статьи, 3 изд., Воронеж, 1982; Курская битва в цифрах, "ВИЖ", 1968, № 6-7. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
??? You can see it. http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14
literature from 1960-1980
Лит.: История второй мировой войны 1939-1945, т. 7, М., 1976; История Вел. Отечеств. войны Сов. Союза. 1941-1945, т. 3, М., 1964; Битва на Курской дуге, М., 1975; Колтунов Г. А, Соловьев Б. Г., Курская битва, М., 1983; Курская битва. Воспоминания, статьи, 3 изд., Воронеж, 1982; Курская битва в цифрах, "ВИЖ", 1968, № 6-7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Piryazev ( talk • contribs) 09:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The sources provided by igor are not good enough according to wiki policies. Its up to him to prove the opposite. At the moment i dont see that he has done this. So the only possibility to bring this numbers to the article is supporting them with reliable sources. Putting this numbers to the article without the sources is not ok. And i guess it happens no up to ten times. So i ask. How to solve this issue? When i revert the edit i follow wiki policies. In my honest opinion i think igor understood the problem and is kinde "disruptive" with reinserting the stuff. I didnt flag this , i did not told any admin i did nothing to bring him problems. What shall i do, accepting that he is persistent and let him edit? The edits are not ok... Blablaaa ( talk) 16:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
500.000 dead, captured and wounded german soldiers in the Battle of Kursk are NOT war time estimation. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
70.000 dead german soldiers between 5 and 23 July (17 days) are NORMAL. Kursk was one of the importaint battles in this war. It was not El-Alamein with 50.000 casualties. Their infos about 12.000 dead Germans are funny. In this operation "Zitadelle" were involved at least 30 german divisions. 12.000 / 30 = 400. Every division lost only 400 dead soldiers in 8 days of active battles ! It can be true. The Red Army lost also 70.000 dead and missing soldiers. It can be true that Red Army lost 70.000 and the Germans 12.000. It can be true for 1941, but not for 1943. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It were 38 german divisions. 12.000 / 38 = 315 dead soldiers in every division ! It is unbelieveble. This source speaks about 70.000 dead and missing russian soldiers.
http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_10_1.html#5_10_23 -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: "What words of paul tell us that bellamy supports 70000 dead german soldiers within 14 days?" I didn't claim that. I wrote that Bellamy confirms some of these data, namely, about 30 smashed divisions.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 05:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
1) 500.000 casualties between 5 July and 23 August are NOT wartime informations.
2) 70.000 dead * 3 = 210.000 losses. During this battle the Germans had also OTHER divisions
3) Kursk was NOT El-Alamein. With Moscow and Stalingrad it was very importaint battle. I believe soviet infos and you can believe german infos, but it must be in article. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
4) Frieser and Manstein use the same infos. Thisis also wartime estimations for german losses. Read Zhukov and in this book you can find infos about 500.000 losses. But not only Zhukov.
5) 1:5 ration was maybe in 1941, but NOT 1943 and not in this battle. The russians lost 886.000 and Germany even by boris sokolov 360.000. 1:2.5. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
6) You must understand, that Germany is NOT Luxemburg or Belgium or Monaco. The had 80 millions people with Austria. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
1) Manstein is reliable and Zhukov not ?
2) 500.000 losses between 5 july and 23 august and 70.000 dead between 5 and 23 july are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. 500.000 are not wartime estimation.
3) Yes I believe soviet information more then german, but it is my personal opinion.
4) "German Krivosheev" dont exist. Their losses are still not ready. Even Overmans says it. And Krivosheev is ready.
5) Why 280.000 ? one dead soldier and 2 wounded. ok it can be also 1 dead and 3 wounded. 900.000 - 280.000 = still 620.000 Germans. It the Battle of Kursk (untill 23 august) were only 20-25.000 german prisoners. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it also not reliable ?
http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm
http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943 -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Dont you have any literature at home about this battle ? This 500.000 you can find EVERYWHERE. I gave already 6 russian sources (Zhukov 7) and 2 english. Is it enough ? Must I give you still 500 sources in 20 languages ? You can find it also by Vassilevski. Manstein wrote his book during the cold war. And ? Are all soviet infos propaganda, because you think so ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but Sokolov uses always highest soviet losses and lowest german losses. 360.000 is very low. I sayd also "even by sokolov". And what is with 2 english sources ?-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
http://www.biograph-soldat.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm
http://www.calend.ru/holidays/0/0/530/
and still two are in the article. What is with this english sources ?
http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm
http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943
Dont forget Zhukov and Vassilevski. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
http://die-cast-army.over-blog.com/article-3459995.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-kursk -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I can do it, but I dont want do it for EVERY revert from me (i want work in wiki always). TWELVE DIFFERENT SOURCES MUST BE ENOUGH. I can give you this names, but you will always say "not reliable". Frieser with 140.000 losses (!!!) is 100% not reliable. 140.000 for such big and importaint battle are more then funny. it were AT LEAST 360.000. even by german infos. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
We speak here about Battle of Kursk. Do you understand this ? KURSK. even in the Normandy the Germans lost 400.000 soldiers. Even in the battle of the bulge dyed 20.000 german soldiers. It was the last big german offensive in World War 2 -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I can do it, but I dont want do it for EVERY revert from me (i want work in wiki always). TWELVE DIFFERENT SOURCES MUST BE ENOUGH. I can give you this names, but you will always say "not reliable". Frieser with 140.000 losses (!!!) is 100% not reliable. 140.000 for such big and importaint battle are more then funny. it were AT LEAST 360.000. even by german infos. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
We speak here about Battle of Kursk. Do you understand this ? KURSK. even in the Normandy the Germans lost 400.000 soldiers. Even in the battle of the bulge dyed 20.000 german soldiers. It was the last big german offensive in World War 2
--
Igor Piryazev (
talk)
20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
And what says Glantz for this battle between 5 July and 23 August ? Also 140.000 ? I speak now about russian historians and not german, american or british. Even if they are pro soviet. This 500.000 are ven not soviet infos.
В ходе 50-дневных боев наши войска разгромили 30 немецких дивизий, в том числе 7 танковых. Даже по преуменьшенным данным гитлеровского командования, общие потери немецко-фашистских войск составили убитыми, тяжелоранеными, пропавшими без вести более 500 тыс. солдат и офицеров, до 1,5 тыс. танков, 3 тыс. орудий и более 3,7 тыс. самолетов. ( http://militera.lib.ru/h/koltunov_solovyev/07.html) -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I translate with promt.
During 50-day fights our armies have crushed 30 German divisions, including 7 tank. Even under the underestimated data of Hitlerite command, the general losses of fascist armies have made killed, the critically wounded patients who were missing more of 500 thousand of the soldier and officers, to 1,5 thousand tanks, 3 thousand tools and more than 3,7 thousand planes.
Do you want to say that Zhukov and Vassilevski are not reliable ? It can not be true. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Soviet estimations are other. 70.000 dead Germans in the Kursk defense operation and 90.000 dead in Orel operation. ( http://wwii-soldat.narod.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm) I dont know it about Belgorod Charkov operation but it must be at least 50.000 dead. There are already 210.000 dead and 20.000 captured. Soviet infos can be estimated in 600.000 Germans. (in Russia the Wehrmacht lost not no much wounded soldiers like in France, because the Red Army was too fast and german soldiers had not give up like in Western Front) -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but what is with Glantz ? What did he say about the whole battel of Kursk ? 140.000 ? 360.000 ? 500.000 ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 21:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Since Igor seems not to understand what he is being asked for, I'll try to do part of his job. The source used by Igor ( http://militera.lib.ru/h/koltunov_solovyev/07.html ) is a book written by two Soviet scholars, G. Koltunov and B. Sovolvyev which was published in 1970 by Voenizdat (Military publisher) publishing house. I found one mention of this book in a review written by a reputable historian John Erickson (The Journal of Military History, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 586-587 ) In his review of Glantz's "The Battle of Kursk, 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study." He writes:
In his review, Erickson contraposes the Koltunov & Solovyev's potboiler and another Soviet source, because the Galntz's book is in actuality a translation of the materials provided and prepared by the Soviet General Staff. My conclusion is that Koltunov & Solovyev is definitely not reliable source, whereas not only Glantz's "The Battle of Kursk, 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study." is reliable, but it is presents the Soviet point of view, although somewhat critically reinterpreted during translation.
I am also a little bit surprised by Igor's choice of the sources. Militara.ru is a collection of history books and memoirs, and some of these sources are rather new and seem to be reliable. For instance, Zamulin's "Kursk turn"
http://militera.lib.ru/h/zamulin_vn/index.html contains numerous data, and provide a very detailed and adequate description of the Zitadelle's course.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
06:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Zamulin speaks only abot Zitadelle, but not about whole battle of Kursk. Is it enough ?
Лит.: История второй мировой войны 1939-1945, т. 7, М., 1976;
История Вел. Отечеств. войны Сов. Союза. 1941-1945, т. 3, М., 1964;
Битва на Курской дуге, М., 1975; Колтунов Г. А, Соловьев Б. Г., Курская битва, М., 1983;
Курская битва. Воспоминания, статьи, 3 изд., Воронеж, 1982; Курская битва в цифрах, "ВИЖ", 1968, № 6-7. ( http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14)
There are already 4 sources: 1976, 1964, 1983 and 1968. Or are ALL soviet sources unreliable ? Give in russian internet "Курская битва 1943" and you will find still a lot of pages. Or is ALL russian internet unreliable too ?
Is famous soviet historian Alexandr Samsonov also unreliable ?
http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2/11.html
There are SOVIET infos and they can not be the same as german sources. It must be clear. And Frieser can also say that the Russians lost 2 million people and Germans 10.000 soldiers. I dont care about it.
In 1943 the Russians lost 2.300.000 soldiers dead and missing (Krivosheev) and the Germans 700.000 dead (Overmans ) and at least 200.000 captured. The ratio in 1943 was 1 : 2.5. But in Kursk Red Army was defense and the losses were lower then 1:2.5. Even by german infos Kursk was one "fortress". -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 07:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Zhukov and Vassilevski are not primary sources. They wrote their books not in 1943. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 07:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
And what is with this 2 english sources ? Why is this unreliable ?
http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm
http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943
OK. Alexandr Samsonov "Crash of fascist aggression" ( http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2/11.html) The book was publishe in 1975. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 08:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Where ??? You can not say that Koltunov and Solovjev are unreliable because of Erickson. Soviet historians say that western historians are unreliable and laught about them. There are 2 point of view in this war and we will never know the truth Is it so difficult to understand ? But is is UNFAIR when we use only german sources (americans and british use also only german sources). Is it really so difficult to understand ??? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, King Tiger is certaily false, but is not soviet source. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 09:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
And what is with Samsonov ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Or this ?
http://die-cast-army.over-blog.com/article-3459995.html
http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943
Is for you all sources, which i give unreliable ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Other question: do you know other soviet sources for this battle ? Which are reliable ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
comparative studies in revolutions and commemoration; international law and legal frameworks; cultural studies--> not suitable for contradicting glantz and all the other guys. Btw hohum i like your green quote style, i copied it :-) Blablaaa ( talk) 22:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
And what is with Samsonov ? Also unreliable ? My 12 sources are different and Sokolow is one source. Sokolov says that Red Army lost 27.000.000 dead soldiers and this is unreliable. I say it still one time: 500.000 losses are german sources. Really soviet sources are higher. --
Igor Piryazev (
talk)
10:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
My sources are reliable. Are all soviet sources unreliable ? It was soviet-german war and we must use also soviet sources and not only german, american and english. 2 questions:
1) Can you find fpr me other soviet sources for this battle ?
2) How can I proove that they are reliable ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Is Samsonov now suddenly unreliable ? Ok, my sources are in article and this is good. You are ill because og western propaganda and I can not help. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
1) You are not historians and can not say "unreliable".
2) I can also say that Frieser is unreliable. His infos are wartime estimations. See a book of Manstein. He said that Germany lost in south 20.000 soldiers.
And he speaks about russian war crimes, but not about german.
3) All sources use wartime infos and this is normal. But 500.000 are not wartime numers.
4) Is 500.000 for such big and importaint battle really so incredible ??? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 15:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Далее о потерях. Немецкий генерал Шмидт, командир 19-й танковой дивизии, жаловался своему командованию, что 5 июля при устройстве переправы для танков через Северский Донец от Белгорода на Михайловский плацдарм под огнем русских «катюш» погибло более 5 тысяч человек. А всего потери немцев при форсировании Северского Донца в течение 5-го и 6-го июля составили не менее 15 тысяч человек (в основном инженерные войска и экипажи танков, в меньшей степени пехота).
Далее. В ходе боев за Хохлово, Киселево и Сабынино - деревни на восточном берегу Северского Донца к северу от Белгорода - 19-я танковая дивизия вообще прекратила свое существование из-за почти стопроцентной убыли своего личного состава.
Далее. Пленные, захваченные уже к концу Прохоровского сражения, в один голос утверждали, что боевые части всех трех немецких танковых корпусов имели на тот момент менее 40% своего личного состава. Эсэсовский корпус, например, имел в своем составе в начале сражения около 86 тысяч человек. Значит, к концу сражения в нем оставалось около 34 тысяч. Потери должны были составить 52 тысячи. Во многих батальонах, по утверждению пленных, осталось по 60-80 человек. На танки, выходившие из ремонта, невозможно было найти экипажи, и они стояли недвижимыми.
И наконец, бойцами 96-й танковой бригады уже 14 июля под деревней Александровка были взяты пять пленных, включая одного офицера, с документами, указывающими, что вояки принадлежали 24-му танковому корпусу, который, по утверждению Манштейна, был в резерве и находился в Харькове и который якобы Гитлер запретил ему трогать. Советская же разведка зафиксировала участие ряда частей этого корпуса еще 7-го июля. Сразу возникает мысль, что, скрывая от истории участие частей 24-го танкового корпуса в Прохоровском сражении, Манштейн пытается значительно приуменьшить свои потери, так как потери этого корпуса, понесенные под Прохоровкой, были списаны на другие бои. ( http://duel.ru/200829/?29_6_1)
Further about losses. German general Schmidt, the commander of 19th tank division, complained to the command that on July, 5th at the device of a crossing for tanks through Severski Donets from Belgorod on Mihajlovsky base under fire of Russian "katyushas" was lost more than 5 thousand persons. And losses of Germans at speeding up of Severski Donets during 5th and have made on 6th of July all not less than 15 thousand persons (basically engineering armies and crews of tanks, to a lesser degree infantry).
Further. During fights for Hohlovo, Kiselevo and Sabynino - villages on east coast of Severski Donets to the north from Belgorod - 19th tank division in general has stopped the existence because of almost absolute decrease of the staff.
Further. Captured, grasped already by the end of Prohorovsky battle, unanimously asserted that fighting parts of all three German tank cases had at that point in time less than 40 % of the staff. The Esesovsky case, for example, incorporated in the beginning of battle about 86 thousand persons. Means, by the battle end in it remains about 34 thousand. Losses should make 52 thousand. In many battalions, under the statement captured, there was till 60-80 a person. On the tanks leaving repair, it was impossible to find crews, and they stood the immovable.
And at last, fighters of 96th tank brigade already on July, 14th under village Aleksandrovka were five are taken captured, including one officer, with the documents specifying that fighters belonged to 24 tank case which, under the statement of Manshtejna, was in a reserve and was in Kharkov and which ostensibly Hitler has forbidden it to touch. The Soviet investigation has fixed participation of some parts of this case still on 7th of July. At once there is a thought that, hiding from history participation of parts of 24th tank case in Prohorovsky battle, Manshtejn tries to diminish considerably the losses as the losses of this case suffered under Prohorovkoj, have been written off on other fights. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 17:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Koltunov and Samsonov are more then reliable and you know it. With this sources I want only to show that this battle is not so easy. Can you proove me that Frieser is reliable ? I wait. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Frieser, an accomplished historian as well as a Bundeswehr officer, originally had this seminal book published in 1995. Titled The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West ... The book is the German Army’s official history of the 1940 German campaign against France and the Low Countries. ... Frieser invested a tremendous amount of research in writing this book, as evidenced by its 44-page bibliography.
But I dont believe Frieser. This is the worst western propaganda I ever seen. This is a world record in lying. Ok, i proove you his unreliability.
1) By Overmans in July and August 1943 in Russia dyed 120.000 german soldiers. Only 40.000 in the Battle of Kursk ? But it must be at least (see Sokolov) 66%, but not 33%. It cant be true.
2) By Frieser the Germans lost in Prokhorovka only 3-5 tanks. Russians lost according to soviet sources 400 tanks. 1:80 ??? It cant be true.
3) Russians lost in this battle 886.000 soldiers and germans by Frieser 170.000. 1:5 ? In 1943 it was 1:2.5. But Kursk was soviet victory and in July Red army was much stronger then in January or February 1943. It cant be true.
4) By Frieser 14.000 dead Germans in Orel Operation. By Krivosheev 112.000 dead and missing Russians. 1:8 ? It cant be true.
I think this is enough.
You can not say that Koltunov is unreliable because of Erickson. And Samsonov because of his government. Very "good" proofs. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 11:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Glantz did not say that Germany lost in Prohorovka 5 tanks or in the whole battle only 170.000 soldiers. Answer my 4 questions. PROOVE me his reliability. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 17:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Frieser is unreliable. Germany lost even by Sokolov who uses german informations 360.000 soldiers, but not 170.000. Or are even german sources also unreliable ? Is it so difficult to understand ? 360.000 are much more then 170.000. Do you understand this fact ? My infos are already in article and I dont want to speak abou it. I speak now about Frieser. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I citate Sokolov:
Official figures of the Soviet human losses and losses in tanks and planes in Kursk fight have been published only in 1993 {30} the German losses have been exaggerated by the Soviet historians several times long before that. By their estimation, German losses have made about 500 thousand soldiers and officers, 1500 tanks and assault tools and more than 3700 planes. {31} these figures are very far from the validity. German losses in a manpower on all East front, according to the information given to the Supreme command вермахта (ОКВ), in July and August, 1943 have made 68 800 killed, 34 800 missing persons both 434 000 wounded men and patients. {32} German losses on the Kursk arch can be estimated in 2/3 from losses on East front as during this period fierce fights occurred also in Donetsk pool, around Smolensk and on northern sector of the front (in area Mgi). Thus, the German human losses in Kursk fight can be estimated approximately in 360 000 killed, missing persons, wounded men and patients, but in any way in 500 000.
But is is also false. By Overmans in July and August 1943 dyed 123.000 german soldiers and not 103.600. There are still 20.000 dead german soldiers. And at least 13.000 from them must dye in the Battle of Kursk. Or are Sokolov and Overmans also unreliable ? 360.000 losses in the whole Battle of Kursk are really the LOWEST NUMBER. My proove is perfect and the proovs of Hohum against Samsonov and Koltunov are nothing. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Upps I was wrong. By Overmans it were 130.429 dead Germans. There are still 27.000 dead Germans and at least 17.000 were killed in the Kursk Battle -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You can do it. But Sokolov is antisoviet historian. He takes always LOWEST german losses and highest soviet losses (not highest they are incredible). I say "Even by sokolov" because he is still worst that german historians. When Sokolov says 360.000 it were AT LEAST 360.000.
Do you understand because i dont believe german sources ? There are still 27.000 dead Germans. Their losses in Russia grow and grow. Today there are 130.429 dead in July and august but 2020 it will be already 170.000, 2040 200.000 and so on. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I notice that discussion has been abandoned, and edit warring is going on. I believe Igor is editing against consensus, and caution both Blablaaa and Igor that they are approaching a bright-line rule: WP:3RR. ( Hohum @)
I'd like to point out that i read very thoroughly all of your discussions and in some casses it was very......interesting....at least....But some issues are quite astonishing i must say...As a young historian, i admit, i can't believe what i read in few occasions. First of all, can someone of you explaine to me why are all Soviet sources all propaganda? Why is Manstein relevant and Zhukov not? Why is Koltunov as a direct participant irrelevant, or unreliable, and Manstein is reliable?By what criteria? In some casses Igor has a point. He gave you a reliable sources,Russian MoD, the works of Russian academics...and that all is Soviet propaganda?I don't get it. Gentleman with nick BLABLA likes the term Soviet propaganda, all is Soviet propaganda...and very very much likes to quote Glantz, Bergström, Frieser, etc...And what they say is a Holy Bible.THE SOURCE... But the same Glanz is perhaps most associated with the thesis that World War II Soviet military history has been prejudiced in the West by its over-reliance on German oral and printed sources, without being balanced by a similar examination of Soviet source material- end quote. From this encyclopedia...WITHOUT BEING BALANCED BY A SIMILAR EXAMINATION OF SOVIET SOURCE MATERIAL!!!! Which are of course all Soviet propaganda...according to some ... ;) You realise that i'm little bit confused about all this. I openly question the objectivity of the earlier menchend editor, and not just him. His line from month june, about 3-5 destroyed german tanks, and a vast number of Soviet...and his commentary after...Everything is on the page...And not just that...I thought that the first criteria of being editor of encyclopedia is objectivity.GENTLEMEN, there is no O of objectivity in your disscusions, or articles. This is simple outrageous. Every decent professor at any University in the world will tell you the same.No wonder people are laughing at Wikipedia-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 08:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Krivosheev is reliable, there is no question about it.I'm aware of wiki-policy about sources, reliability...ect. But Igor was on good lead, although failed to name appropriate references.Not defending him, some of his claims are pretty much for laughing…But regarding Aleksandr Mikhailovic Samsonov:
1) Krakh fashistskoi agressii : 1939-1945 : istoricheskii ocherk / A. M.
Samsonov. Moskva : Nauka, 1975.
2) Krakh fashistskoi agressii, 1939-1945 : istoricheskii ocherk / A.M.
Samsonov. Izd. 2-e, ispr. i dop. Moskva : Izd-vo "Nauka," 1980.
3) Vtoraia Mirovaia voina, 1939-1945 : ocherk vazhneishikh sobytii / A.M.
Samsonov. Moskva : Izd-vo "Nauka", 1985.
4) Vtoraia Mirovaia voina, 1939-1945 : ocherk vazhneishikh sobytii / A.M.
Samsonov. Izd. 4., ispr., dop. Moskva : "Nauka", 1990.
Official publisher is Soviet/Russian Academy of science.Well, he's a member of Academy of sciences, and as we know, not every professor can become a member, only one whith high research background.I'm aware of ideological burden though....Regarding German sources: many recent sources agree that German data are incomplete.Some of it is destroyed, some lost, some captured by a various Alied sides. Frieser is questionable. Only 3-5 tanks lost at Prokhorovka...C'mon Blablaaa. Your knowledge is huge, no question about it.But the numbers....Let's for the momment do a little bit of theory. Let's say Germans have 800.000 men for the offensive,(indulge me :) ) let's say they have approximately 3000 tanks...In the battle of such magnitude and with losses less then 10% of men and material, why retreating? We know already that in other battles the casualty rattio was far higher then that, and they still kept fighting. Alied invasion of Sicily is bad excuse...So again,why retreating? And quote:” Heinz Guderian wrote in his diary With the failure of Zitadelle we have suffered a decisive defeat. The armoured formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come. It was problematical whether they could be rehabilitated in time to defend the Eastern Front... Needless to say the Russians exploited their victory to the full. There were to be no more periods of quiet on the Eastern Front. From now on, the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative……” My question is where are those men and equipment? According to some of historians you are very fond of, Germans should won the battle. But…Soviets remain in possession of the battlefield after the battle .And the phrase “assanation of the field”… You know what it means. Counting dead and wounded, berried them, clearing wreckages of destroyed/abandoned equipment, and COUNTING… ect …Of course, Soviet estimates of German KIA/MIA/WIA are probably too high, but the number of destroyed tanks is by all logic correct, or at least nearly correct. So, Frieser estimates of the Germans losses at Prokhorovka just 3-5 tanks...ridiculous… —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sarcasticone (
talk •
contribs) 23:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC) --
Sarcasticone (
talk)
23:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the outcome of the battle i think you want to hear my honest opinion, so i will try to give you. People always forget that the german attacked kursk because the soviet allowed them this. People think before this battle was launched, germans had the iniative. They had not. The soviets were able to attack at every point some weeks after charkov. The losses sustained at kursk were pretty irrelevant for the war. even if the germans would have inflicted 1.2 million casualties. That the german exhausted themself at zitadelle is kinda incorrect the soviets simply unleashed several armies which started to push against the entire front. Multiple units had were rushed to other fronts like south and so on. In my opinion frieser has the best study regarding this. Please read it when you have time. People try to search for "turning points" and so on. When there was a turning point then it was early 42 when soviets brought more ressources to the front than german were able to destroy ( sounds weird but thats it ). After the soviets defeated the wehrmacht at moscow eastern front became a battle of attrition. This doesnt sound so cool like "oh the turning point, now the tide turned". Regarding Guderian, you should note that guderian was one of the people who heavily argued against zitadelle before. I dont discredit guderian ( i like him ^^ ) but you should take this into account if you want to base your opinion on the wartime comment of a general who got overruled. But when you bring a General then i also bring one , manstein said literally after prokhorovka "omg what a victory now we have destroyed all the reserve tank lets finish them", german commanders were so overwhelmed by the battle at prokhorovka. Well i never base my opinion on wartime comments, but if you hear manstein then you will question the soviet version of prokhorvka. And finally it was debunked. Are you able to read german i can give you a link to a study which deals only with prokhorovka. Blablaaa ( talk) 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Before the north retreated the losses there were actually lower than the losses in the south. I guess this can be explained with models hesitation to go all in. It is explained in the article aswell. After the red army pushed forward you are correct. Losing ground is bad for your tank strenght especially if you lose ground pretty fast Blablaaa ( talk) 08:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough…I have read Frieser. German speaking sources are no problem. Russias are, unfortunately. We need both. Objectivity issue…Less then a year ago we were doing research about war time propaganda. Of course no better examples then one in WW2. And we have come on something. On the youtube, (those miracle of modern technology… :) ) we find a loot of German and Soviet newsreels. Some about regarding the battle of Kursk. Also, we stumble upon on some kind of archival film. Number of what it seems to be an abandoned German tanks on some field. At first we thought that was from Stallingrad. It wasn’t. We where doing some counting. Approximately 100-120 of them. Mostly panzers3,4 but there were some Panthers also. No visible battle damage could be seen. In few cases only. . We contact the user asking about the origin of film. I’m afraid we where over-enthusiastic because only thing we learn is that is from some episode of Battlefield serial from Discovery and Millitary channel regarding Kursk. We contact them also but unfortunately got no reply. But most interesting was that in one German newsreel we collect the exact number of destroyed Soviet tanks and planes that Frieser gives. About 4000 planes… One more thing. There were a lot of German panzers divisions which borrowed their tanks to other divisions depending of their role and operational risks and tasks. That might explain why LAH had a larger number of tanks after the battle then before.-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 11:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, but what we saw was not the aftermath of the battle. And not about Prokhorovka. No smoking wreckages, like I said, just few of them where obviously damaged. it’s look like a vehicle repair depot, or some sort of storage yard, field maintenance depot probably, captured by the Soviets. Bad thing is that film last about 8 sec. And is cut of after. But in background there are more. We counted as much as i said earlier. In the Battlefield Series, film is long about 12-15 sec, depends of version. There are much more. Panthers and assault guns. This is the reason why we wrote to them, to find somehow real origin of film and its actual length. And of course, the source…Well, Ok, source is certainly Soviet side. As I said , no reply. It’s frustrating a bit. Concerning Frieser, it’s strange that his claims or his sources claims are the same as in German newsreels…Which is de facto propaganda. “LAH reported no reinforcements”. Well, it’s possible and likely. In the midst of battle, all that mayhem and carnage around ,confusion and so on, you don’t have the time to fill the proper papers, or worry about procedure. I was in the army, in peace time, of course, and I’m familiar a bit how things works. Nearby unit have equipment you need, call them and there is your reinforcement…One more thing, At that period, Elephant tanks were among Soviet soldiers known as a “ KING TIGER”, I just remembered your talk from earlier in discussion when I was not the participant. -- Sarcasticone ( talk) 13:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
About King Tiger… Yes, regular Tiger saw action at the eastern front in winter 1942/1943, Leningrad operational area. At that time hi didn’t prove itself, mostly because of mechanical breakdowns. So the Soviets where very well aware of it. Elephant was s surprise. I read a Soviet veteran confession about battle. At some point he started to talk about “King Tiger”. My reaction was like…what is he talking about? Then he explained. That was heavy tank, fixed turret, but without machinegun. He stated that they later find out that tank name was Elephant/Ferdinand…Concerning Frieser…first, planes. Second Frieser himself. He quote sources that wiki claims are unreliable. Koltunov and Rotmistrov. How source which is “state” reliable, could still be reliable if he’s quoting unreliable sources. That doesn’t make any sense. You catch my drift?-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
To Blablaa. Sorry but I mast address like this.I’m under fire by both of you. :) Regarding Frieser. I’m aware that he uses them to evaluate. But the fact he is using “unreliable” sources for evaluation and then decides are they goad or not without thoroughly research other potential Soviet sources concerning the matter is scandal par excellence!!! The numbers that bother me are Luftwaffe claims regarding Aircraft losses Blablaaa. 4000 Is simply rubbish. And find in german newsreel as I told you before. And he estimates. Who is he to estimate without proper sources or most important proper methodology (which is the first thing in any scientific work that matters) His methodology is dubious and questionable. His estimates are based on what? “Unreliable” sources that hi enterprets as he finds convenient, methodology which is none existent…He GUESS!!! Regarding Samsonov. Hohum claims doesn’t hold water. In the period when Samsonov began his work, Soviets openly denounce Stalin. In fact , all that post Stalin Soviet era is indeed quite different then what it was before. Of course , ideological burden is still present but in much less scale. About claims that Samsonovs work is government sponsored and published, yes, that is correct. But think of something. There were no private enterprises in Eastern block. No one else could publish or do anything about the matter if there is no state support. We cant dismissed Samsonov just because his work is sponsored by state. There is no other instance who instead of state will publish it. And something else. Samsonov research background is over 30 years long, with open access to Soviet archives. Ok, there is still ideological burden, like I said in discussion earlier,in much lesser scale and when you dismiss that, data seems to be pretty reliable. His references are very goad. Member Of Academy of Science. Not just books published, many other science works published. The fact that there is no review, or at list we didn’t find any satisfactory, is not enough for the claim that hi must be treated as a relict of a Cold War. And there is language barrier unfortunately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticone ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry about signature-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 11:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I must explain methodology issue further more. Methodology requires comparing sources. We can’t se that at Frieser. Second, it requires explanation of method which is used to get conclusions. Step by step. We can’t see that either. Out from nowhere he jumps with conclusions and numbers. How he has got that numbers we don’t have a clue. He offers no evidence to support his claims, He offers no method or explanation what kind of methodological work is being done to support his statements.It can be summarized as “I think”. Well, “I think” is not credible at this point. And precisely that is the weakness of Frieser.--
Sarcasticone (
talk)
14:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
To Hohum @. Maybe it seems I’m begrudging it. And if the people think I’m hater because of that then :_( … I’m just here to celebrate, worship and adore. :) We have the 12 principles and the 9 things , wiki policy and whole darn thing… But, if you have a little time and if I’m not asking to much of you, please send me the link to the specific site. As you said before, maybe I don’t realise the rigor that is being attempted here to ensure that wikipedia articles are of high quality, and not based on the personal assurances of every editor with an opinion. I suppose the site is
http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2. Is it?
Blablaa you don’t understand methodology issue here. You may have a million notes, it’s no goad without proper way of interpreting them. Method is the key. There is no sources for aircraft…and then he explains that he thinks…He explains without proper analysis, source, method…I’m amazed that historian with such background can show such ignorance about basic matters.--
Sarcasticone (
talk)
10:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hohum which specific part undermines Samsonov at that site? It is published under patron Of Academy of science and used as the official book for military academy and even for high school education. He research the subject with access at Soviet military archives. I explained why there is no other publishing source earlier. Take a look back into discussion. Maybe, just maybe google translation confused you. Context is rather strange when you use this gizmo. Blablaaa, Frieser uses strange criteria in his work, as I said before. Koltunov and Rotmistrov are reliable in some cases but in others they are not? Well, there is no such thing as the semi-reliable source. Source is reliable at full, or it’s unreliable completely. Half- reliable sources aren’t sources.I will no repeat my self concerning methodology. We all accept the claim that suicidal charge and ramming of german tanks at Prokhorovka were propaganda, yes? Pay attention at the “special guest star” of the show Blablaaa http://victory1945.rt.com/films/kursk-burning-bulge-1943/ Don’t worry it’s in English. After you see this, please explain how Frieser could still be reliable?-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 10:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I really try to be objective and not support any “side” but to support scientific method of finding out the truth. I don’t now how much you are acquainted with the fact that being a member of Academy of Science of any serious state (and I do hope we agree that previous USSR as well as Russia today, as USA, Germany, France, etc are serious states whether you like them or not) means that in every research you must use proper, adequate, reliable, and at last but not the least important, objective scientific methods. Such kind of methods are universal, nevertheless are supported from Communist or Capitalist state, private or any other non-private or non- governmental organization, because something is science or it is not at all. Therefore I’m more confident in reliability of Samsonov then of Frieser because he has had just one truth. One fact really supports my point of view because I was able to see as well as to listen the performance of the other scientist (Frieser) on western and on the eastern media. I was astonished seeing that it has been quite different, obviously adapted to the needs, attitudes and “official” history of the referring side. Suicidal ramming of German tanks is proven propaganda, but on the film showed at Russia Today TV Channel, Frieser said that it is real fact that it had happened, and in fact that is not propaganda. On the other side, for western audience it was, according to the same author, proven propaganda. I’m really not able to understand two scientific truths, from the same author. Are you?-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 16:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Time framme regarding ramming 20.min 04.sec. Russian historian speaking.Confirmattion Frieser. time frame 20 min 19.sec quote: Yes and produce strong psyhological pressure on Germans. The soviet tank crews went to their death honorably....--
Sarcasticone (
talk) 09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
--
Sarcasticone (
talk)
09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kurs was the largest tank battle of World War Two. The result was a tactical draw, but Hitler called off the attack. From this point on Germany found itself on the strategic defensive, while Moscow began an offensive push that would culminate in the seizure of Berlin. Most historians acknowledge Kursk as the swan song of German armored warfare. There are three reasons for this shared notion. The first is that CITADEL was the last time the Germans held the strategic initiative on the Eastern Front. Secondly, Soviet diplomats no longer demanded a second front from their Anglo-American Allies with the same vehemence as they had prior to the Battle of Kursk. Finally, the German panzer divisions never regained the relative or absolute strength they had enjoyed before the Battle of Kursk. Aside from this,historical interpretations of Kursk diverge sharply. The interpretations of the Battle of Kursk fall into five schools of thought: the German, the Soviet, the Western prior to Ultra declassification, the modern mainstream, and the modern revisionist. Those who fought on the Eastern Front or were either ardent Nazis or Cold War Communists belong to the first two schools of thought. The last three schools formed as time elapsed after World War Two and as information became declassified and therefore available to historians. The German school consists of individuals who believe that German failure at Kursk was not inevitable. For example, Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, stated that Hitler had stopped the attack too soon, a decision that he described as "tantamount to throwing away a victory." On the contrary, research shows that the German forces could not have achieved Operation CITADEL’s goal of a massive encirclement, let alone reduced the Soviet forces that would have remained in this encirclement. The evidence does indicate, however, that Hitler placed too many restrictions on his subordinates and withdrew the best armored formations too soon. Von Manstein’s statement is a perfect example of the German school of thought's inherent problem—rationalization and blame obfuscation. The basis for the German view is a tendency of defeated people to rationalize when looking back at the previous war, instead of examining objectively the reasons for their failure whether personal or national. The German school of thought often tries to place the point of Germany's downfall during World War II on Adolf Hitler's shoulders because of his “meddling” in the conduct of the war. Although there is some merit to certain points of this argument, its exponents seem to be trying to exonerate themselves and to deflect the blame from the rest of the German people, the German officer corps, the German armed forces, indeed, even Germany itself. In other words, this viewpoint attempts to romanticize and rationalize away the German reverse at Kursk and the destruction of the Third Reich in general. Out of the German school of thought come many works on the crucial battle at Kursk and the earlier Battle of Stalingrad. Representative defenders of the German viewpoint are Erich von Manstein, Martin Caidin, Paul Carrell, and F. W. von Mellenthin, among others. Because of their personal biases and outright attempts to pass on the blame for the failure of CITADEL and the war, their arguments and their information require cautious reading. They do make two valid points. First, Hitler waited far too long to execute Operation CITADEL, and, second, von Manstein's desire to keep attacking when Hitler ordered the end of the attack was the correct one, as German armored forces could have completed the destruction of the Soviet armored reserves. What von Manstein and the other proponents of this school do not adequately explain is how this feat of arms would have been achieved, nor do they explore the strategic-operational ramifications of continued attack while the Soviet counteroffensives that were occurring in the Orel bulge and along the Mius River. The Soviet view lies at the other end of the spectrum—the Germans were doomed to fail at Kursk from the beginning. These historians, for regime's political purposes, in some cases edited the writings of Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky, Marshal Sergei Shtemenko, Major General Pavel Rotmistrov, Marshal Georgi Zhukov, and other wartime leaders. Zhukov, in fact, found himself completely written out of official Soviet history, redeemed, and then again ignored as his political fortunes waxed and waned during the decades following World War. Buuuuut, in the end, we had instead of swastika over the Kremlin, cicle and hammer over the Reichstag…And that is a fact!-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 10:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Re Sturmvogel. Naive and foolish? Ohh, I tried so hard to sound intelligent… :_( But I’ll do my best now. Your continuous repeating that history is „puzzle“ has been a little bit tiresome because You have been „knocking at the opened door“. You have problem of having general overview that „puzzle approach“is not the exclusive right of the history as the science but of the all sciences because of the universal scientific principles. All of them have to obey such principles to be – a science. The main problem is the source of data (their reliability) that made the elements of that puzzle, and I think is the only thing we fully agree. I do hope that we also agree that evidence based science is the only real science. What is the main problem than? - Obviously the source of the evidence as the elements of the „puzzle“. Let us start with that. What are the sources of data of the author whose point of view you support? It seems from someone that was closely related with the events on the filed, may be witnesses’ or directs participants of the battle. It could be sources from the archives of Wermacht, Nacinalsocialists or similar. It is well known that both of these sources had excellent archives although it not sure how much of it had been destroyed or left behind. What is also well known that Nacionalsocialists have had the very good propaganda, not considering at the moment the level of the trust of the information for the public. Just from the professional point of view, it was in fact, excellent. Despite the trust or ethical aspect it had been so good that made the contribution to the development of some communication skills that we nowadays call as public relations. There is no doubt that at time it had been the best propaganda that had never be seen or used before. Why do you think that Soviet communist even and especially under Stalin „iron hand“, had had the better propaganda skills? Such opinion is to use your words - just foolish. But even if you think so, you have all the rights in the world to think different as I have too. The question is about the evidence related to the reliability of data – the elements of the puzzle that gives the advantage to one side – Your side. What are the evidence that the real data and not propaganda came from the masters of the war propaganda? I really do my best trying to explain my point of view that history is evidenced based puzzle, as the other scientific fields, so any further discussions about the subject above is just useless. RE HOHUM: Re Frieser clip. You obviously have the serious problem with your perception.....And, yes that text earlier was from 'Revisiting A "Lost Victory" At Kursk"' by Jonathan P. Klug, whose menthor was Glantz.-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 19:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
One more thing, regarding claim that Soviets didn’t want to admit tech superiority of their adversary falls because at first Victory parade in Moscow after the war Zhukov at his speech admit that. You can find full film at the YouTube with eng subtitles. And it’s remastered , in colour… :)-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 09:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
To my astonishment I find this discussion resurfaces across WiKipedia, whenever and whereever Soviet and by extension Russian battles and wars are concerned. There is a tendency from russian contributors to downplay russian casualties, wounded and to portray many battles who are internationally and by a consensus in academia regarded as Soviet/russian losses and defeats into the exact opposite and at best as draw or variations thereof. It is something that is disturbing and annoying and if not handled properly, will cast into doubt every article in which Russia/Soviet union is a part. This was the case with the article on the Winter war where Russians tried to establish completely irrational and unrealistic low casualty rates for the Red Army. It is the case in the Article on the war in Afghanistan 1979-89, where russians are trying to establish the contrefactual and revisionist claim that it was not an invasion as well as posting completely unrealistic low casualty rates as well. The same can be seem across the articles with revisionist and sometimes pure pre-1991 Soviet propaganda finds its way into the articles. This includes allusion to the wild claim that the fall of the Soviet union was a conspiracy by NATO in general and USA in particular.
As a writer it annoys me, but as a historian it deeply troubles me. The last time I saw a similar conserted effort to rewrite the facts to fit a specific political agenda was when Hitler and NSDAP rewrote the story of WW I to establish the myth of 1) german military invincibility and 2) Dolchstoßlegende ("dagger-stab legend") which claimed that the army, "undefeated in the field," had been "stabbed in the back" by civilian leaders and Marxists back on the home front.
Now I am not looking for a fight or undue polemic debate - but it is a generic problem which is also very clearly here.
And on a final note: Krivosheev is NOT infallible - he has produced much of the volume of his impressive work of figures previously confidential and from the Red Army. But that does not mean its accurate - by a long shot. Therefore the same procedures and techniques which any historical event should be subjected to so be applied liberally here. Which means that it is not the number of sources but rather their validity and international acceptance that should define their worth. Nick-bang ( talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I’m almost certain the last time You saw a similar conserted effort to rewrite the facts to fit a specific political agenda was before invasion of Iraq.--
Sarcasticone (
talk)
11:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Can anybody explain what the words: "The T-34 model (only a few of which were equipped with 76 mm tubes), was out-ranged by German Tiger and Panther tanks but was faster and more manoeuvrable." mean? Did I understand correct that "76 mm tubes" mean the T34 main gun, and if that is the case, what gun other T34 were equipped with?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 03:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
sounds like a "mistake". 76 mm gun was standart at this time, wasnt it? Blablaaa ( talk) 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I am somewhat bemused with the infobox figures. Although German strength and casualties are clamed to be taken from Frieser, they are in direct contradiction with the numbers provided by one of Frieser's co-authors, Chris Bellamy. He speaks about ~70 German divisions involved in the Battle of Kursk, and about more than a half a million killed, seriously wounded, captured or missing, with overall German-Soviet ratio of 1 to 1.5. ("Absolute war", p. 594). In addition, the number of troops contradicts to what Glantz says (he speaks about a million of German troops.) Although the way the infobox is organized now is definitely a progress, the numbers need to be fixed.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 03:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Paul i added the detailed casualties figures from dapis sandbox. i think its ok so? what do u think ?
The section now is unsourced. Maybe we write a new one or update the recent with some citiations. Frieser has the opinion that Kursk can not be seen as a "turning point" and sees the strategic significanse as limited. He also explains that the situation before and after kursk were no really different. I think its worth to mention this. So i would appreciate help. Blablaaa ( talk) 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
We should expand this section, with a little comparison of the armor and the airforces. Blablaaa ( talk) 11:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
According to http://ww2stats.com/index.html losses of German forces (KIA+WIA+MIA) on Eastern Front during May-June 1943 are 7891+30375+3049+6682+28047+837=76881. Losses during July-August 1943 are 34874+147053+14674+33962+134263+20272=385098. The difference is ~310 thousand, almost twice higher than stated in current article (170k).
http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_tow43.html
Combined losses of Army Groups South and Center during July-August 1943 are 325 thousand (KIA+WIA+MIA).
http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec43.html
Olvegg ( talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The section of Soviet casualties lists 863,303 - 1.677,000 men (KIA/WIA?). How is that possible considered that the total no. of German + Russian casualties would amount to over 2000,000 men? Consider Stalingrad as the most bloody battle in history. Moreover, the page on List of battles by casualties only states 257,125–388,000 combined casualties for Kursk. I think this part has been maliciously vandalized. Assassin3577 ( talk) 05:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"likly to low" becaus many buried russian soldiers were not even enlisted men, krivoshev lists only enlisted men thats why his overall casualtiesfigures for ww2 are to low, there are at least 1 million men missing .FACT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 07:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not round the Soviet casualties up to a round trillion. That is a far more realistic estimate isn't it? I'm almost positive it must have taken a million Russians to kill a single German, and there is no chance in Hell they could ever destroy one of the invincible German tanks. Come to think of it, did the Russians even win the war? Maybe Germany did in fact occupy Moscow?
THE FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE ARE LUDICROUS!!!! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.185.172.119 (
talk)
16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
While understanding that, for some editors, English is not their first language (and also noting that their skills with it are far beyond my ability in anything other than English); The quality of this article is being damaged by very poor copy editing.
German, Russian, Red Army are all names, and should be capitalised; as should all month names. The manual of style for date formatting suggests that articles keep a consistent style. In this article, it is 18 July 1943, not the 18th July, 1943.
References, by convention, go after commas, and periods.
Please take the time to preview your edits before saving them. Spelling mistakes have often been of words that are correctly spelled elsewhere in the same edit.
I have just spent some time cleaning up several dozens of avoidable issues. Some edits are so riddled with issues that I'll start reverting them entirely instead of repairing them, as they damage the article more than they improve it.
Do not feel that your contributions are not valued, but it is primarily the responsibility of the contributing editor to ensure their additions are of the quality required. Hohum 05:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I must agree that quite a bit of work is necessary on this article to clean it up grammatically (I won't even begin to go into the numerous POV issues - this is something the editors and peer-review will have to address-I just hope no student uses it in its current state for some school report). There are problems with even the opening paragraph as of Memorial Day 2010. Please set aside all pro-German and pro-Russian bias, and work towards a balanced, believable and GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT article. This is the English Wiki and must conform to well-written English. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan
This myth is one of the biggest of the entire war and historians like overy and glantz were punked.
All historians which used only russian sources are totally useless. Overy simple cited rotmistrovs fantasy number of 350. the number of 350 german tank losses was introduced by rotmistrov himself. Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Band 6 has an complete chapter about the fantasy stories of rotmistrov and how lazy and unskilled historians like overy are coping this statements. The best example is glantz who is cited with using the 350 ^^ and is cited for 343 overall german tank losses ^^. Thats why its better to name the secondary source and the used primary source so we can avoid that users like dapi search historians which got punked by one primary ( which is allready descredited even by russian historians)and present them like many different historians with the same opinion.... . no source which cites rotmistrov for numbers ( some other things are ok ) should be allowed for wiki. also this sources can not be used for the outcome tactical stalemate , lol ? Blablaaa ( talk) 09:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
dapi please take your books and tell me which source is cited for the 350 german tanks. Blablaaa ( talk) 14:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
on the german wiki i try to include the participating armies in the text. i think we can do the same here. can anyone take a look on the german version and give an opinion . i think it looks better and the reader can see it faster. [ [2] Blablaaa ( talk) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have simplified the presentation so that it's easier to maintain. ( Hohum @) 22:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that the OOB is unnecessary clutter given that there's a dedicated article (whose small number of views suggest that this isn't a topic of interest to many readers), but whatever - I personally like orbats but generally write them as text in the article and have a separate OOB article. It would be helpful if the German terms were translated into their common English-language terms (eg, 'Panzergrenadierdivision' is normally referred to as 'Panzer Grenadier Division' and 'Panzerdivision' 'Panzer Division' - I presume that 'Heeresgruppenreserve' is 'Army Group Reserve' and it should be translated as such to prevent readers from thinking that this was a single unit rather than a group of units). Nick-D ( talk) 11:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
On another note. I noticed that the soviet aircraft casualties for the entire battle have the upper estimate of 4,209 with the note (nb 10) "Luftwaffe claims until 24th autumn, note: this excludes accidents and aircraft losses due to anti air". For the same reasons my earlier comment, the number is nonsense (I also think there is a typo and should say 24th August). According to Krivosheev (see citeation 16 in the article), total soviet air casualties from all causes for all of 1943 are 26,700 (of which only 11,700 were claimed to be combat casualties). The first number directly leads to the number of available aircraft available in 1944, so is quite reliable and not disputed. The luftwaffe claim sounds silly and I do not think it should be in the infobox. D2306 ( talk) 19:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
i will take a look and translate it Blablaaa ( talk) 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Frieser is supporting this claim. I shortend the text. He explains that german claims are pretty reliable. Regarding the battle of britian dont be confused with claims of pilots and published claims. Frieser talks about the claims of pilots which were approved by superios, he dont talks about any propaganda numbers published by germany. I wasnt there i dont know how much soviet lost. When i only look german losses then soviet ones sound resonable for me. When we assume same loss ratios for citadel and counter attacks we get the 4000. so it sounds ok. What do u suggest ? Blablaaa ( talk) 17:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The soviet aircraft losses are a special problem. No complete soviet figures are avaiable so frieser used another source in this particular case. Again i ask for anthoer source. i have none Blablaaa ( talk) 17:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I try to make it short: Igors figures ( actually this are the immediate wartime propaganda numbers published by the soviets) are 7 times !!! higher than the accepted figures of Glatz Frieser Zetterling Frankson and and and. This is nothing else than an extraordinary claim, such a claim needs heavy reference. User igor brings russian website with glorious battle descriptions. Most of his sides are fanboysites. Nothing more than forums. I explained this issue to user Igor , he is not understanding the problem. I will revert every edit of him which includes extraordinary claims without extraordinary reference. Regarding the issue, the numbers a-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)re indeed absolute nonsense, for the battle of kursk they exceed the number of german troops participating. I write this to make sure that my reverts are no edit warring, i only delete blatant vandalism. Blablaaa ( talk) 16:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
To igor. I can read your sites. And iam not blind. A simple text hosted on any website is no reliable source! Blablaaa ( talk) 21:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Blablaaa ( talk) 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I checked the two sources again. The fun is over now. The first website is citing another website, where a simple text is published without any note regarding participatin of any historians. The second seems to be kind of wartime letter or somethingelse with date of 23 july 43 . Guys are u serious????? For me: the discussion is over i will start to go to admin board cause of vandalism for any new inapt source. The issue is explained if somebody brings another website for the claims he tries to disrupt wiki. This is not the kindergarden. We are on Wiki and we use the best possible source for claims. My job is not to check every new website which is brought by igor, because hes simply googling. There are tons of websites which quote other websites. He can continue this game very long. Iam out of the game. I will revert the vandalism and go to the administration board if neccessary. Rediculious.... Blablaaa ( talk) 14:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Read what is written above and than read whats written in the article about reliable sources. Until u have done this please consider not editing the article Blablaaa ( talk) 20:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
please stop change my words. i say soviet propaganda is soviet propaganda. 70000 dead germans during zitadelle are soviet wartime propaganda, totally irrelevant which website prints this numbers, they are still propaganda numbers, is this so hard to understand? u brought no reputable sources.... Blablaaa ( talk) 03:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Sooo now i took a look on your KOSAVE, iam not sure why u broad this up but the study contradicts u and supports me:
"""(3) Differences in Casualties. From 5-18 July, Soviet casualties were much greater than German. Relative to initial onhand, total casualties amounted to 23 percent of the Soviet force and 12 percent of the German force. The greatest differences were in KIA and CMIA. Overall, the Soviets lost (KIA) nearly 5 men killed for every German killed and 24 CMIA for every German CMIA.
(4) Daily Casualty Rates. If daily average combat casualty rates are averaged over the 5 July-18 July period, the overall Soviet rate was 4 times the German rate.
(6) Fractional Exchange Ratios. Soviet/German FER results computed in favor of Germans, based on both KCMIA casualties and on combat casualties, show that the Germans almost always had an advantage (FER >1). The KCMIA FER exceeds 4.00 on 9 days. However, the historical battle outcome suggests that this was not enough to achieve a decisive victory."""
"""Tank Losses. Total Soviet tank losses (204) are over 20 times German (9). The vast majority of today’s tank conflicts are near Prokhorovka, where the counterattacking Soviet 29 Tank Corps, 18 Tank Corps, and 2 Gds Tank Corps lose a total of 144 tanks against �Leibstandarte SS, Totenkopf SS, and Das Reich, which lose a total of 6 tanks (4 Pz III and 5 Pz IV). Highest Soviet tank losses (88) are in 29 Tank Corps, which loses 60 T-34s and 28 T-70s. Highest German tank losses (four) are in Leibstandarte SS. Most of the Soviet losses are T-34s (119), T-70 (61), and MK-4 Churchill (13). Recorded as damaged in action today are 89 German tanks and 210 Soviet tanks."""
this are the naked numbers for the big legendary victory of the red army at prokhorovka (where the red army stoped the german offensive and destroyed the fighting power of the SS divisions) . Blablaaa ( talk) 04:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
91.000 prisoners in Stalingrad are also propaganda ?
http://9may.ru/04.02.1943/inform/m3913
There are many views of Prokhorovka. By Rotmistrov the Germans lost only on 12 July 1943 against his army 10.000 dead soldiers and 350 tanks.
http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/rotmistrov2/04.html (see "Только за 12 июля в боях с 5-й гвардейской танковой армией противник лишился свыше 350 танков и потерял более 10 тысяч человек убитыми") In Wikipedia must be ALL POINTS OF VIEW. igor piryazev-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
But you are not a king of wikipedia. You can not improove your opinion with references.
soviet point of view 5-23 july ( http://bdsa.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2119&Itemid=29)
german 5-13 july
There are still 10 days. igor piryazev-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
"Does not look" is not proof. And this references ? Also propaganda ?
http://www.tankobzor.org/glava7part2.html (see "За время боев с 5 по 23 июля немецко-фашистская армия потеряла 2900 танков, 195 самоходно-артиллерийских установок, 1392 самолета, свыше 5000 автомобилей.")
http://wwii-soldat.narod.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm (see: "Идем дальше. Уже давно и довольно хорошо известно, во всяком случае людям, знакомым не понаслышке с военным делом, что наступающая на подготовленную оборону противника сторона несет значительно большие потери по сравнению с обороняющимися. Дело в том, что находящийся в обороне солдат сидит в укрытии (окоп, траншея, блиндаж и т. п.), а наступающий на него солдат лишен такого преимущества, он должен передвигаться по открытой местности под огнем противника. Так у кого же больше вероятности уцелеть в бою? Оставляем вопрос открытым, пусть читатель сам на него отвечает. А этот факт очернители нашего боевого прошлого почему-то не хотят принимать во внимание. А ведь это – аксиома, не требующая доказательств. В этой связи позволительно спросить такого рода «историков», принимающих на веру домыслы наших бывших противников, а почему же тогда наступающая сторона понесла вдвое меньшие потери, нежели сторона обороняющаяся? Тем более, что ни в танках, ни в артиллерии наступающий превосходства не имел, да и господство в воздухе в ходе сражения немецкая авиация утратила.
Теперь посмотрим на проблему с другой стороны. Сами немцы признают, что их танковые и моторизованные дивизии понесли большие потери в танках. Не помогла им и новая техника, на которую они возлагали такие надежды. Так, их танковые корпуса, составлявшие основу ударных группировок, которые должны были сокрушить советскую оборону, во время наступления на Курской дуге потеряли от 60 до 80 % своих танков. Вследствие этого почти половина немецких танковых и моторизованных дивизий утратили свою боеспособность. А ведь танк уничтожить несравнимо сложнее, нежели человека. Так вот в отношении потерь немецко-фашистских войск в ходе их наступательной операции на Курской дуге, поскольку точные данные о немецких потерях отсутствуют (и это, несмотря на знаменитую немецкую педантичность!), мы предлагаем читателю сделать выводы самому. И наконец, в заключение следует сказать – немецко-фашистское командование отлично осознавало (об этом свидетельствуют многочисленные документы и другие источники), что провал операции «Цитадель» и переход советских войск в контрнаступление означали коренной перелом в войне с Советским Союзом и окончательный переход стратегической инициативы к советской стороне. ") igor piryazev-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
But I can confirm: theyare normal. I dont say "the germans lost 70.000 dead" I say "According to sovit information..." Must I give still 100 references ? igor piryazev--
Igor Piryazev (
talk)
21:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
But I dont must do it. There are soviet/russian infos. I dont must talk about every reference and proove you, that they are in order. Let it be. The readers must not believe them. There are reliable sources and if you say "no" you must PROOVE it. I dont have a time for such games. Every source could be "unreliable". Frieser is so for me, but i dont delete them. igor piryazev--
Igor Piryazev (
talk)
07:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I know it, but also allied sources are false. Read Montgomery. 300.000 german losses in Normandy were also WARTIME estimation and today there are already 400.000 losses. I say it still one time: RUSSIAN HISTORIANS BELIEVE INFORMBÜRO ALSO TODAY. There are 2 examples:
1) Korsun pocket
infos of 1944: 55.000 dead and 18.200 captured. ( http://9may.ru/19.02.1944/inform/m4596)
today also 55.000 dead and 18.000 captured ( http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1944.html#5)
2) Stalingrad 91.000 prisoners. It is topically also today. ( http://9may.ru/05.02.1943/inform/m3913)
And there are a lot of such examples. igor piryazev-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
And still 2 examples:
3) Vienna Operation 1945
1945: 32 divisions smashed and 130.000 prisoners ( http://9may.ru/15.04.1945/inform/m4233)
today also ( http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1945.html#14)
4) Debrecen Operation
1944: 42.000 prisoners ( http://9may.ru/30.11.1944/inform/m2804)
also today: ( http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1944.html#49)
I hope this is enough. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
On another note. I noticed that the soviet aircraft casualties for the entire battle have the upper estimate of 4,209 with the note (nb 10) "Luftwaffe claims until 24th autumn, note: this excludes accidents and aircraft losses due to anti air". For the same reasons my earlier comment, the number is nonsense (I also think there is a typo and should say 24th August). According to Krivosheev (see citeation 16 in the article), total soviet air casualties from all causes for all of 1943 are 26,700 (of which only 11,700 were claimed to be combat casualties). The first number directly leads to the number of available aircraft available in 1944, so is quite reliable and not disputed. The luftwaffe claim sounds silly and I do not think it should be in the infobox.
D2306 (
talk)
19:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There are TWO VERSIONS: GERMAN AND RUSSIAN. You can not speak about russian infos with german point of view. Certyinly the are different. Readers must deside whom believe. But this reference is no wartime:
I mean the whole battle of Normandy untill 25 August 1944. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
i will take a look and translate it Blablaaa ( talk) 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read this (
http://www.novoemnenie.ru/rassl/14p.html)
ПОТЕРИ ВЕРМАХТА И ВОЙСК СС
К настоящему времени не существует достаточно надежных цифр потерь немецкой армии, полученных прямым статистическим подсчетом. Объясняется это отсутствием по разным причинам достоверных исходных статистических материалов о немецких потерях.
Более или менее ясна картина относительно числа военнопленных вермахта на советско-германском фронте. По российским источникам советскими войсками было пленено 3172300 солдат вермахта, из них в лагерях НКВД находилось 2388443 немца. По подсчетам немецких историков, в советских лагерях военнопленных только немецких военнослужащих было около 3,1 млн. Расхождение, как видите, примерно в 0,7 млн. чел. Объясняется это расхождение различиями в оценке числа погибших в плену немцев: по российским архивным документам, в советском плену погибло 356700 немцев, а по оценке немецких исследователей — примерно 1,1 млн. чел. Представляется, что более достоверной является российская цифра погибших в плену немцев, а недостающие 0,7 млн. пропавших без вести и не вернувшихся из плена немцев на самом деле погибли не в плену, а на поле боя.
Что касается погибших солдат вермахта и войск СС на советско-германском фронте, то тут положение гораздо хуже.
Абсолютное большинство публикаций, посвященных расчетам боевых демографических потерь вермахта и войск СС, опираются на данные центрального бюро (отдела) учета потерь личного состава вооруженных сил, входящего в Генеральный штаб верховного главнокомандования. «Чрезмерщики» оценивают эти данные как абсолютно достоверные. Но при ближайшем рассмотрении оказалось, что мнение о высокой достоверности сведений этого отдела сильно преувеличено. Так, немецкий историк Р. Оверманс в статье «Человеческие жертвы Второй мировой войны в Германии» пришел к выводу, что «... каналы поступления информации в вермахте не обнаруживают той степени достоверности, которую приписывают им некоторые авторы». В качестве примера он сообщает, что «одно служебное заключение отдела потерь в штабе вермахта, относящееся к 1944 году, документально подтвердило, что потери, которые были понесены в ходе польской, французской и норвежской кампаний и выявление которых не представляло никаких технических трудностей, были почти вдвое выше, чем первоначально сообщалось».
Нужно сказать, что недостоверность немецких сообщений о потерях была очевидна еще во время войны. Несколько примеров занижения немцами своих потерь приводит в своей книге «Войны и народонаселение Европы» Б. Урланис. В частности, он пишет, что 11 декабря 1941 г. Гитлер в рейхстаге заявил, что с 22 июня по 1 декабря 1941г. германская армия потеряла 195648 убитыми и пропавшими без вести, что ненамного меньше, чем зафиксировано в отделе учета потерь штаба вермахта (257900 убитых и пропавших без вести). «Новый международный ежегодник» за 1941 г. назвал эти цифры «крайне фантастическими» и привел при этом исчисление американских военных наблюдателей, по которому на 11 декабря 1941 г. потери немцев убитыми определялись в 1300 тыс. чел., что более чем в 5 раз превышает данные вермахта. Даже в Германии никто не верил официальным данным о потерях германской армии. Б. Урланис приводит выдержку из статьи в шведском журнале «Векку-журнален», опубликованной в апреле 1943 г. и в которой отмечалось: «Каждый немец думает, что если бы официальные цифры о размерах потерь были бы верными, то борьба против СССР уже давно была бы закончена».
Явное недоверие вызывают сведения отдела потерь о числе погибших немецких солдат в ходе разгрома армий группы «Центр» Красной Армией под Москвой: цифры потерь вермахта за декабрь 1941 года и за январь 1942 года почти в полтора раза меньше, чем в июле и августе 1941 года, когда вермахт почти беспрепятственно двигался по советской земле.
И еще один пример. По данным отдела потерь вермахта в январе 1943 года погибло 37 тыс. немецких солдат, а непосредственный участник Сталинградской битвы, занимавший в то время высокие посты в немецких войсках, в том числе начальника штаба 17-го армейского корпуса, генерал-майор Г. Дерр в книге «Поход на Сталинград» (сборник «Роковые решения») пишет, что «только за период с 24 января по 2 февраля 1943 г. погибло более 100 тыс. человек». Кроме того, в эти же дни была прорвана блокада Ленинграда, и в ходе боев погибла не одна тысяча солдат вермахта.
В целом сведения отдела потерь вермахта не могут служить исходными данными для расчета потерь вооруженных сил Германии в Великой Отечественной войне.
Существует другая статистика потерь — статистика захоронений солдат вермахта. Согласно приложению к закону ФРГ «О сохранении мест захоронения» общее число немецких солдат, находящихся в зафиксированных захоронениях на территории Советского Союза и восточноевропейских стран, составляет 3 млн. 226 тыс. чел. Эта цифра может быть принята в качестве исходной для расчета демографических потерь вермахта, однако она нуждается в корректировке.
Во-первых, эта цифра учитывает только захоронения немцев, а в составе вермахта воевало большое число солдат других национальностей: австрийцы (из них погибло 270 тыс. чел.), судетские немцы и эльзасцы (погибло 230 тыс. чел.) и представители других национальностей и государств (погибло 357 тыс. чел.). Из общего числа погибших солдат вермахта не немецкой национальности на долю советско-германского фронта приходится 75—80%, т. е. 0,6—0,7 млн. чел.
Во-вторых, эта цифра относится к началу 90-х годов прошлого столетия. За прошедшее с той поры время поиск немецких захоронений в России, странах СНГ и странах Восточной Европы продолжался. А появлявшиеся на эту тему сообщения были недостаточно информативны. Так, например, российская ассоциация военных мемориалов, созданная в 1992 году, сообщила, что за 10 лет своего существования передала Немецкому союзу по уходу за воинскими захоронениями сведения о захоронениях 400 тыс. солдат вермахта. Однако были ли это вновь обнаруженные захоронения или они уже учтены в цифре 3 млн. 226 тыс. — не ясно. К сожалению, обобщенной статистики вновь обнаруженных захоронений солдат вермахта найти не удалось. Ориентировочно можно принять, что число вновь обнаруженных за последние 10 лет захоронений солдат вермахта находится в пределах 0,2—0,4 млн. чел.
В-третьих, многие захоронения погибших солдат вермахта на советской земле исчезли. Например, участник войны Александр Лебединцев в книге «Отцы-командиры» приводит рассказ одного из местных жителей, что сил на захоронение немецких трупов после боев не было, поэтому труппы сбрасывали в глубокую промоину и, обрушив стенку промоины, засыпали их. В период весеннего половодья промоину размыло, и остатки немецких захоронений унесли в реку талые воды. Кроме того, как отметил Похлебкин В.В. в книге «Великая война и несостоявшийся мир», в лесах и болотах Новгородчины, Литвы и Полесья до сих пор существуют сотни тысяч безымянных могил немецких солдат, погибших в боях с Красной Армией, особенно во время весеннего наступления советских войск в 1944 г. Ориентировочно в таких исчезнувших и безымянных могилах могло быть захоронено 0,4—0,6 млн. солдат вермахта.
В-четвертых, в эти данные не включены захоронения немецких солдат, убитых в боях с советскими войсками на территории Германии и западноевропейских стран. По данным Р. Оверманса, только за последние три весенних месяца войны погибло порядка 1 млн. чел. В целом на германской земле и в западноевропейских странах в боях с Красной Армией погибло примерно 1,2—1,5 млн. солдат вермахта.
Наконец, в-пятых, в число захороненных вошли и солдаты вермахта, умершие «естественной» смертью (0,1—0,2 млн. чел.).
В целом демографические потери вермахта на советско-германском фронте составляют 5,4 ... 6,3 млн. чел., из них 0,4 млн. погибли в плену.
Эта оценка согласуется с цифрами, приведенными Гитлером 16 марта 1945 года в рейхстаге: Германия в войне потеряла 12,5 млн. чел., из них половина убитыми. Учитывая, что по данным немецких историков потери немецкого гражданского населения погибшими к тому времени составляли около 400 тыс. чел, а на Западном фронте было убито около 300 тыс. немецких солдат, то, выходит, что к 16 марта 1945 г. на советско-германском фронте погибло примерно 5,5 млн. немецких солдат.
-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 15:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I translate with "Promt"
LOSSES ВЕРМАХТА AND ARMIES СС
By this time there are no enough the reliable figures of losses of German army received by direct statistical calculation. It speaks absence for various reasons authentic initial statistical materials about German losses.
More or the picture concerning number of prisoners of war вермахта on the Soviet-German front is less clear. On the Russian sources the Soviet armies had been captivated 3172300 soldiers вермахта, from them in camps of People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs there were 2388443 Germans. By estimates of German historians, in the Soviet prisoner-of-war camps only German military men there was about 3,1 million Divergence, as you can see, approximately in 0,7 million people this divergence distinctions in a death-roll estimation in a captivity of Germans Speaks: under the Russian archival documents, in Soviet to a captivity 356700 Germans were lost, and according to German researchers — about 1,1 million people It is represented that more authentic is the Russian figure of victims in a captivity of Germans, and missing 0,7 million Germans who have missing and not come back from a captivity actually were lost not in a captivity, and in the field of fight.
As to the lost soldiers вермахта and armies СС on the Soviet-German front then position is much worse.
Overwhelming majority of the publications devoted to calculations of fighting demographic losses вермахта and armies СС, lean against the data of the central bureau (department) of the account of losses of staff of the armed forces entering into the Joint Staff of general headquarters.« Чрезмерщики »estimate this data as absolutely authentic. But it has on closer examination appeared that the opinion on high reliability of data of this department is strongly exaggerated. So, the German historian R.Overmans in article« Human a victim of the Second World War in Germany »has come to a conclusion that«... Channels of receipt of the information in вермахте do not find out that degree of reliability which is attributed it by some authors ». As an example he informs that« one office conclusion of department of losses in a staff вермахта, concerning by 1944, has documentary confirmed that losses which have been suffered during the Polish, French and Norwegian campaigns and which revealing did not represent any technical difficulties, were almost twice above, than was originally informed ».
It is necessary to tell that unauthenticity of German messages on losses was obvious even during war. Some examples of understating by Germans of the losses result in the book «Wars and the population of Europe» B.Urlanis. In particular, he writes that on December, 11th, 1941 Hitler in рейхстаге has declared that from June, 22nd till December, 1st 1941г. The German army has lost 195648 killed and missing persons that ненамного, than is fixed in department of the account of losses of a staff вермахта (257900 killed and missing persons). «The new international year-book» for 1941 named these figures "extremely fantastic" and has resulted thus calculation of the American military observers on which for December, 11th, 1941 of loss of Germans by the killed were defined in 1300 That more than in 5 times exceeds the data вермахта. Even in Germany nobody trusted the official data about losses of the German army. B.Urlanis results endurance from article in the Swedish magazine "Vekku-zhurnalen", published in April, 1943 and in which it was marked: «Each German thinks that if official figures about the sizes of losses would be true struggle against the USSR would be finished for a long time already».
Obvious mistrust is caused by data of department of losses on a death-roll of German soldiers during defeat of armies of group "Center" by Red Army near Moscow: вермахта for December, 1941 and for January, 1942 almost in one and a half time it is less than figure of losses, than in July and August, 1941 when вермахт almost free moved on the Soviet earth.
And one more example. According to department of losses вермахта in January, 1943 was lost 37 thousand German soldiers, and the direct participant of Stalingradsky fight holding at that time high posts in German armies, including the chief of a staff of 17th army case, the major general G.Derr in the book «the Campaign on Stalingrad» (the collection «Fatal decisions») writes that «only from January, 24th on February, 2nd, 1943 was lost more than 100 thousand persons». Besides, the same days blockade of Leningrad has been broken through, and during fights one thousand soldiers вермахта was lost not.
As a whole data of department of losses вермахта cannot serve as the initial data for calculation of losses of armed forces of Germany in the Great Patriotic War.
There is other statistics of losses — statistics of burial places of soldiers вермахта. According to the appendix to the law of Germany «About preservation of places of a burial place» total number of the German soldiers who are in fixed burial places in territory of Soviet Union and the East Europe countries, makes 3 million 226 thousand people This figure can be accepted as initial for calculation of demographic losses вермахта, however it requires updating.
First, this figure considers only burial places of Germans, and in structure вермахта the great number of soldiers of other nationalities was at war: the Austrians (from them was lost 270 thousand people), судетские Germans and эльзасцы (was lost 230 thousand people) and representatives of other nationalities and the states (was lost 357 thousand people). From total number of the lost soldiers вермахта not on a share of the Soviet-German front 75—80 % are necessary a German nationality, i.e. 0,6-0,7 million people
Secondly, this figure concerns the beginning of 90th years of last century. For the past since then time search of German burial places in Russia, the CIS countries and countries of Eastern Europe proceeded. And messages appearing on this theme were insufficiently informative. So, for example, the Russian association of military memorials created in 1992, has informed that for 10 years of the existence has transferred to the German union on care of military burial places of data on burial places of 400 thousand soldiers вермахта. Whether However there were it again found out burial places or they are already considered in million 226 thousand figure 3 — not clearly. Unfortunately, the generalised statistics of again found out burial places of soldiers вермахта it was not possible to find. It is roughly possible to accept that the number of burial places of soldiers again found out over the last 10 years вермахта is in limits of 0,2-0,4 million people
Thirdly, many burial places of the lost soldiers вермахта on the Soviet earth have disappeared. For example, the participant of war Alexander Lebedintsev in the book "Fathers-commanders" results the story of one of local residents that forces on a burial place of German corpses after fights were not, therefore troupes dumped in a deep gully and, having brought down a gully wall, fell asleep them. In a spring high water a gully has washed away, and the rests of German burial places have carried away thawed snow in the river. Besides, as has noted Pohlebkin V.V. in the book «Great war and not taken place world», in woods and bogs of Novgorodchiny, Lithuania and Polesye till now exist hundred thousand anonymous tombs of the German soldiers who were lost in fights with Red Army, especially during spring approach of the Soviet armies in 1944 Roughly in such disappeared and anonymous tombs could be buried 0,4-0,6 million soldiers вермахта.
Fourthly, burial places of the German soldiers killed in fights with the Soviet armies in territory of Germany and the West European countries are not included in this data. According to R.Overmansa, only for last three spring months of war was lost an order of 1 million people As a whole on the German earth and in the West European countries in fights with Red Army was lost about 1,2-1,5 million soldiers вермахта.
At last, fifthly, the number of the buried included also soldiers вермахта, died "natural" death (0,1-0,2 million people).
As a whole demographic losses вермахта on the Soviet-German front make 5,4... 6,3 million people, from them 0,4 million were lost in a captivity.
This estimation will be co-ordinated with the figures resulted by Hitler on March, 16th, 1945 in рейхстаге: Germany in war has lost 12,5 million people, from them half killed. Considering that according to German historians of loss of German civilians victims by then made about 400 thousand foreheads, and on the Western front that has been killed about 300 thousand German soldiers, leaves that by March, 16th, 1945 on the Soviet-German front was lost about 5,5 million German soldiers. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 15:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This is RELIABEL SOURCE ( http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.html)
This book war written AFTER 1981 ( http://goga-hidoyatov.narod.ru/soderj.html)
is it enough ? and you can not delete my references. I and Dimowik against you and Balablaa. 2 aganist 2. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Very funny. You can find this infos in EVERY russian book and on EVERY internet page. Must I giive you still 10 references ? In my source you can read the literature (1970-1980). Can you read it ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 07:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
And your Frieser is unreliable. He will ctiticed even by german historians. His infos are funny even fpr german propaganda. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 07:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Or are this sources also wartime propaganda?
http://www.biograph-soldat.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm
http://www.calend.ru/holidays/0/0/530/
-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 08:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2010-1-132
Den Kämpfen 1943-1944 in der Sowjetunion, dem Hauptthema des Bandes, widmet Karl-Heinz Frieser fast 500 Seiten. Vor allem seine Darstellungen provozieren eine Fülle von kritischen Fragen. Frieser konfrontiert den Leser mit längst überkommen geglaubten Weisen der Militärgeschichtsschreibung. Aus der reinen Binnensicht der Militärs werden hier Kriegswerkzeuge einander gegenüber gestellt, die dann „fechten“. In immer gleichem Schema bemüht sich Frieser, die jeweiligen Kräfteverhältnisse vor einer Schlacht zu erläutern, die Taktiken zu erklären, die Verläufe gerafft zu schildern und die Ergebnisse zu fixieren. Er blendet aber fast den gesamten Kontext der Kriegführung aus. Man erfährt kaum etwas über die Logistik und die Versorgungsfragen der jeweiligen gigantischen Armeen, nichts über die konkreten Besatzungsräume, in denen sie agierten. Kaum ein Wort wird über die Rückzugsverbrechen der Wehrmacht und ihren Kontext verloren. Die millionenhafte Vertreibung, Zwangsevakuierung und Aushungerung der sowjetischen Zivilbevölkerung und die planmäßige Verwüstung ganzer Regionen bleibt außerhalb des von ihm gezeichneten Bildes. Nur Wegner skizziert einige Grundlinien (S. 256-268). Frieser charakterisiert die deutsche Wehrmacht als professionell geführte Truppe, die schließlich nicht nur der Roten Armee, sondern vor allem Hitler zum Opfer gefallen sei. Er bezeichnet diese Situation gar als Zweifrontenkrieg (S. 565). Frieser schreibt fast ausschließlich aus der Nachkriegsperspektive deutscher Generäle, insbesondere des von ihm offensichtlich hoch verehrten Erich von Mansteins. Ihrer militärischen ‚Vernunft‘ wird immer wieder der ‚irrationale‘ Hitler gegenüber gestellt. Es bedarf der Lektüre der Abschnitte von Wegner, um dieses Zerrbild wesentlich zu differenzieren. Frieser kritisiert sowjetische Quellen scharf, deutsche hingegen kaum. Manche seiner Zahlenangaben erscheinen daher zweifelhaft.[1] Zwar korrigiert Frieser einige Legenden, die sich um wesentliche Schlachten ranken, und das Ausmaß der Kämpfe erscheint schier unglaublich mit Millionen gefallener Soldaten. Aber der Versuch, den Anteil der deutschen Generalität an der verbrecherischen Kriegführung zu minimieren, kann nicht überzeugen. Die salvatorische Klausel, dass wirtschafts- und besatzungspolitische Fragestellungen in anderen Bänden der Reihe untersucht würden (S. XIV), vermag dieses Manko nicht wett zu machen, zumal es für die Jahre 1943 und 1944 in den Bänden des MGFA auch nicht umgesetzt wurde.
By german infos the Germans lost in the Battle of Kursk 360.000 and not 140.000. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
360.000 even by Boris sokolov ( http://militera.lib.ru/research/sokolov1/03.html)
Таким образом, германские людские потери в Курской битве можно оценить примерно в 360 000 убитых, пропавших без вести, раненых и больных, но никак не в 500 000. Потери люфтваффе тоже были гораздо ниже. В июле и августе 1943 г., согласно данным источников из Германского военного архива во Фрайбурге, потери на Востоке составили только 1030 самолетов, и даже на всех театрах общие потери достигали не более чем 3213 боевых машин.{33} Таким образом, советская версия в 3700 самолетов противника, уничтоженных в Курской битве, совершенно абсурдна. Эта цифра основывается на донесениях советских авиационных командиров военного времени,{34} где потери противника преувеличивались в несколько раз. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I translate Sokolov.
Official figures of the Soviet human losses and losses in tanks and planes in Kursk fight have been published only in 1993 {30} the German losses have been exaggerated by the Soviet historians several times long before that. By their estimation, German losses have made about 500 thousand soldiers and officers, 1500 tanks and assault tools and more than 3700 planes. {31} these figures are very far from the validity. German losses in a manpower on all East front, according to the information given to the Supreme command вермахта (ОКВ), in July and August, 1943 have made 68 800 killed, 34 800 missing persons both 434 000 wounded men and patients. {32} German losses on the Kursk arch can be estimated in 2/3 from losses on East front as during this period fierce fights occurred also in Donetsk pool, around Smolensk and on northern sector of the front (in area Mgi). Thus, the German human losses in Kursk fight can be estimated approximately in 360 000 killed, missing persons, wounded men and patients, but in any way in 500 000. Losses люфтваффе too were much more low. In July and August, 1943, it agree to the data of sources from the German military archive in Freiburg, losses in the east have made only 1030 planes, and even on all theatres the general losses reached no more than 3213 fighting vehicles. {33} thus, the Soviet version in 3700 planes of the opponent destroyed in Kursk fight, is absolutely absurd. This figure is based on reports of the Soviet aviation commanders of a wartime, {34} where losses of the opponent were exaggerated several times. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You can see it.
http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14
literature from 1960-1980
Лит.: История второй мировой войны 1939-1945, т. 7, М., 1976; История Вел. Отечеств. войны Сов. Союза. 1941-1945, т. 3, М., 1964; Битва на Курской дуге, М., 1975; Колтунов Г. А, Соловьев Б. Г., Курская битва, М., 1983; Курская битва. Воспоминания, статьи, 3 изд., Воронеж, 1982; Курская битва в цифрах, "ВИЖ", 1968, № 6-7. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
??? You can see it. http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14
literature from 1960-1980
Лит.: История второй мировой войны 1939-1945, т. 7, М., 1976; История Вел. Отечеств. войны Сов. Союза. 1941-1945, т. 3, М., 1964; Битва на Курской дуге, М., 1975; Колтунов Г. А, Соловьев Б. Г., Курская битва, М., 1983; Курская битва. Воспоминания, статьи, 3 изд., Воронеж, 1982; Курская битва в цифрах, "ВИЖ", 1968, № 6-7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Piryazev ( talk • contribs) 09:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The sources provided by igor are not good enough according to wiki policies. Its up to him to prove the opposite. At the moment i dont see that he has done this. So the only possibility to bring this numbers to the article is supporting them with reliable sources. Putting this numbers to the article without the sources is not ok. And i guess it happens no up to ten times. So i ask. How to solve this issue? When i revert the edit i follow wiki policies. In my honest opinion i think igor understood the problem and is kinde "disruptive" with reinserting the stuff. I didnt flag this , i did not told any admin i did nothing to bring him problems. What shall i do, accepting that he is persistent and let him edit? The edits are not ok... Blablaaa ( talk) 16:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
500.000 dead, captured and wounded german soldiers in the Battle of Kursk are NOT war time estimation. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
70.000 dead german soldiers between 5 and 23 July (17 days) are NORMAL. Kursk was one of the importaint battles in this war. It was not El-Alamein with 50.000 casualties. Their infos about 12.000 dead Germans are funny. In this operation "Zitadelle" were involved at least 30 german divisions. 12.000 / 30 = 400. Every division lost only 400 dead soldiers in 8 days of active battles ! It can be true. The Red Army lost also 70.000 dead and missing soldiers. It can be true that Red Army lost 70.000 and the Germans 12.000. It can be true for 1941, but not for 1943. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It were 38 german divisions. 12.000 / 38 = 315 dead soldiers in every division ! It is unbelieveble. This source speaks about 70.000 dead and missing russian soldiers.
http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_10_1.html#5_10_23 -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: "What words of paul tell us that bellamy supports 70000 dead german soldiers within 14 days?" I didn't claim that. I wrote that Bellamy confirms some of these data, namely, about 30 smashed divisions.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 05:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
1) 500.000 casualties between 5 July and 23 August are NOT wartime informations.
2) 70.000 dead * 3 = 210.000 losses. During this battle the Germans had also OTHER divisions
3) Kursk was NOT El-Alamein. With Moscow and Stalingrad it was very importaint battle. I believe soviet infos and you can believe german infos, but it must be in article. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
4) Frieser and Manstein use the same infos. Thisis also wartime estimations for german losses. Read Zhukov and in this book you can find infos about 500.000 losses. But not only Zhukov.
5) 1:5 ration was maybe in 1941, but NOT 1943 and not in this battle. The russians lost 886.000 and Germany even by boris sokolov 360.000. 1:2.5. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
6) You must understand, that Germany is NOT Luxemburg or Belgium or Monaco. The had 80 millions people with Austria. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
1) Manstein is reliable and Zhukov not ?
2) 500.000 losses between 5 july and 23 august and 70.000 dead between 5 and 23 july are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. 500.000 are not wartime estimation.
3) Yes I believe soviet information more then german, but it is my personal opinion.
4) "German Krivosheev" dont exist. Their losses are still not ready. Even Overmans says it. And Krivosheev is ready.
5) Why 280.000 ? one dead soldier and 2 wounded. ok it can be also 1 dead and 3 wounded. 900.000 - 280.000 = still 620.000 Germans. It the Battle of Kursk (untill 23 august) were only 20-25.000 german prisoners. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it also not reliable ?
http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm
http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943 -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Dont you have any literature at home about this battle ? This 500.000 you can find EVERYWHERE. I gave already 6 russian sources (Zhukov 7) and 2 english. Is it enough ? Must I give you still 500 sources in 20 languages ? You can find it also by Vassilevski. Manstein wrote his book during the cold war. And ? Are all soviet infos propaganda, because you think so ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but Sokolov uses always highest soviet losses and lowest german losses. 360.000 is very low. I sayd also "even by sokolov". And what is with 2 english sources ?-- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
http://www.biograph-soldat.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm
http://www.calend.ru/holidays/0/0/530/
and still two are in the article. What is with this english sources ?
http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm
http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943
Dont forget Zhukov and Vassilevski. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
http://die-cast-army.over-blog.com/article-3459995.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-kursk -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I can do it, but I dont want do it for EVERY revert from me (i want work in wiki always). TWELVE DIFFERENT SOURCES MUST BE ENOUGH. I can give you this names, but you will always say "not reliable". Frieser with 140.000 losses (!!!) is 100% not reliable. 140.000 for such big and importaint battle are more then funny. it were AT LEAST 360.000. even by german infos. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
We speak here about Battle of Kursk. Do you understand this ? KURSK. even in the Normandy the Germans lost 400.000 soldiers. Even in the battle of the bulge dyed 20.000 german soldiers. It was the last big german offensive in World War 2 -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I can do it, but I dont want do it for EVERY revert from me (i want work in wiki always). TWELVE DIFFERENT SOURCES MUST BE ENOUGH. I can give you this names, but you will always say "not reliable". Frieser with 140.000 losses (!!!) is 100% not reliable. 140.000 for such big and importaint battle are more then funny. it were AT LEAST 360.000. even by german infos. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
We speak here about Battle of Kursk. Do you understand this ? KURSK. even in the Normandy the Germans lost 400.000 soldiers. Even in the battle of the bulge dyed 20.000 german soldiers. It was the last big german offensive in World War 2
--
Igor Piryazev (
talk)
20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
And what says Glantz for this battle between 5 July and 23 August ? Also 140.000 ? I speak now about russian historians and not german, american or british. Even if they are pro soviet. This 500.000 are ven not soviet infos.
В ходе 50-дневных боев наши войска разгромили 30 немецких дивизий, в том числе 7 танковых. Даже по преуменьшенным данным гитлеровского командования, общие потери немецко-фашистских войск составили убитыми, тяжелоранеными, пропавшими без вести более 500 тыс. солдат и офицеров, до 1,5 тыс. танков, 3 тыс. орудий и более 3,7 тыс. самолетов. ( http://militera.lib.ru/h/koltunov_solovyev/07.html) -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I translate with promt.
During 50-day fights our armies have crushed 30 German divisions, including 7 tank. Even under the underestimated data of Hitlerite command, the general losses of fascist armies have made killed, the critically wounded patients who were missing more of 500 thousand of the soldier and officers, to 1,5 thousand tanks, 3 thousand tools and more than 3,7 thousand planes.
Do you want to say that Zhukov and Vassilevski are not reliable ? It can not be true. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Soviet estimations are other. 70.000 dead Germans in the Kursk defense operation and 90.000 dead in Orel operation. ( http://wwii-soldat.narod.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm) I dont know it about Belgorod Charkov operation but it must be at least 50.000 dead. There are already 210.000 dead and 20.000 captured. Soviet infos can be estimated in 600.000 Germans. (in Russia the Wehrmacht lost not no much wounded soldiers like in France, because the Red Army was too fast and german soldiers had not give up like in Western Front) -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but what is with Glantz ? What did he say about the whole battel of Kursk ? 140.000 ? 360.000 ? 500.000 ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 21:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Since Igor seems not to understand what he is being asked for, I'll try to do part of his job. The source used by Igor ( http://militera.lib.ru/h/koltunov_solovyev/07.html ) is a book written by two Soviet scholars, G. Koltunov and B. Sovolvyev which was published in 1970 by Voenizdat (Military publisher) publishing house. I found one mention of this book in a review written by a reputable historian John Erickson (The Journal of Military History, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 586-587 ) In his review of Glantz's "The Battle of Kursk, 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study." He writes:
In his review, Erickson contraposes the Koltunov & Solovyev's potboiler and another Soviet source, because the Galntz's book is in actuality a translation of the materials provided and prepared by the Soviet General Staff. My conclusion is that Koltunov & Solovyev is definitely not reliable source, whereas not only Glantz's "The Battle of Kursk, 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study." is reliable, but it is presents the Soviet point of view, although somewhat critically reinterpreted during translation.
I am also a little bit surprised by Igor's choice of the sources. Militara.ru is a collection of history books and memoirs, and some of these sources are rather new and seem to be reliable. For instance, Zamulin's "Kursk turn"
http://militera.lib.ru/h/zamulin_vn/index.html contains numerous data, and provide a very detailed and adequate description of the Zitadelle's course.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
06:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Zamulin speaks only abot Zitadelle, but not about whole battle of Kursk. Is it enough ?
Лит.: История второй мировой войны 1939-1945, т. 7, М., 1976;
История Вел. Отечеств. войны Сов. Союза. 1941-1945, т. 3, М., 1964;
Битва на Курской дуге, М., 1975; Колтунов Г. А, Соловьев Б. Г., Курская битва, М., 1983;
Курская битва. Воспоминания, статьи, 3 изд., Воронеж, 1982; Курская битва в цифрах, "ВИЖ", 1968, № 6-7. ( http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14)
There are already 4 sources: 1976, 1964, 1983 and 1968. Or are ALL soviet sources unreliable ? Give in russian internet "Курская битва 1943" and you will find still a lot of pages. Or is ALL russian internet unreliable too ?
Is famous soviet historian Alexandr Samsonov also unreliable ?
http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2/11.html
There are SOVIET infos and they can not be the same as german sources. It must be clear. And Frieser can also say that the Russians lost 2 million people and Germans 10.000 soldiers. I dont care about it.
In 1943 the Russians lost 2.300.000 soldiers dead and missing (Krivosheev) and the Germans 700.000 dead (Overmans ) and at least 200.000 captured. The ratio in 1943 was 1 : 2.5. But in Kursk Red Army was defense and the losses were lower then 1:2.5. Even by german infos Kursk was one "fortress". -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 07:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Zhukov and Vassilevski are not primary sources. They wrote their books not in 1943. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 07:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
And what is with this 2 english sources ? Why is this unreliable ?
http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm
http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943
OK. Alexandr Samsonov "Crash of fascist aggression" ( http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2/11.html) The book was publishe in 1975. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 08:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Where ??? You can not say that Koltunov and Solovjev are unreliable because of Erickson. Soviet historians say that western historians are unreliable and laught about them. There are 2 point of view in this war and we will never know the truth Is it so difficult to understand ? But is is UNFAIR when we use only german sources (americans and british use also only german sources). Is it really so difficult to understand ??? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, King Tiger is certaily false, but is not soviet source. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 09:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
And what is with Samsonov ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Or this ?
http://die-cast-army.over-blog.com/article-3459995.html
http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943
Is for you all sources, which i give unreliable ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Other question: do you know other soviet sources for this battle ? Which are reliable ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
comparative studies in revolutions and commemoration; international law and legal frameworks; cultural studies--> not suitable for contradicting glantz and all the other guys. Btw hohum i like your green quote style, i copied it :-) Blablaaa ( talk) 22:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
And what is with Samsonov ? Also unreliable ? My 12 sources are different and Sokolow is one source. Sokolov says that Red Army lost 27.000.000 dead soldiers and this is unreliable. I say it still one time: 500.000 losses are german sources. Really soviet sources are higher. --
Igor Piryazev (
talk)
10:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
My sources are reliable. Are all soviet sources unreliable ? It was soviet-german war and we must use also soviet sources and not only german, american and english. 2 questions:
1) Can you find fpr me other soviet sources for this battle ?
2) How can I proove that they are reliable ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Is Samsonov now suddenly unreliable ? Ok, my sources are in article and this is good. You are ill because og western propaganda and I can not help. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 16:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
1) You are not historians and can not say "unreliable".
2) I can also say that Frieser is unreliable. His infos are wartime estimations. See a book of Manstein. He said that Germany lost in south 20.000 soldiers.
And he speaks about russian war crimes, but not about german.
3) All sources use wartime infos and this is normal. But 500.000 are not wartime numers.
4) Is 500.000 for such big and importaint battle really so incredible ??? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 15:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Далее о потерях. Немецкий генерал Шмидт, командир 19-й танковой дивизии, жаловался своему командованию, что 5 июля при устройстве переправы для танков через Северский Донец от Белгорода на Михайловский плацдарм под огнем русских «катюш» погибло более 5 тысяч человек. А всего потери немцев при форсировании Северского Донца в течение 5-го и 6-го июля составили не менее 15 тысяч человек (в основном инженерные войска и экипажи танков, в меньшей степени пехота).
Далее. В ходе боев за Хохлово, Киселево и Сабынино - деревни на восточном берегу Северского Донца к северу от Белгорода - 19-я танковая дивизия вообще прекратила свое существование из-за почти стопроцентной убыли своего личного состава.
Далее. Пленные, захваченные уже к концу Прохоровского сражения, в один голос утверждали, что боевые части всех трех немецких танковых корпусов имели на тот момент менее 40% своего личного состава. Эсэсовский корпус, например, имел в своем составе в начале сражения около 86 тысяч человек. Значит, к концу сражения в нем оставалось около 34 тысяч. Потери должны были составить 52 тысячи. Во многих батальонах, по утверждению пленных, осталось по 60-80 человек. На танки, выходившие из ремонта, невозможно было найти экипажи, и они стояли недвижимыми.
И наконец, бойцами 96-й танковой бригады уже 14 июля под деревней Александровка были взяты пять пленных, включая одного офицера, с документами, указывающими, что вояки принадлежали 24-му танковому корпусу, который, по утверждению Манштейна, был в резерве и находился в Харькове и который якобы Гитлер запретил ему трогать. Советская же разведка зафиксировала участие ряда частей этого корпуса еще 7-го июля. Сразу возникает мысль, что, скрывая от истории участие частей 24-го танкового корпуса в Прохоровском сражении, Манштейн пытается значительно приуменьшить свои потери, так как потери этого корпуса, понесенные под Прохоровкой, были списаны на другие бои. ( http://duel.ru/200829/?29_6_1)
Further about losses. German general Schmidt, the commander of 19th tank division, complained to the command that on July, 5th at the device of a crossing for tanks through Severski Donets from Belgorod on Mihajlovsky base under fire of Russian "katyushas" was lost more than 5 thousand persons. And losses of Germans at speeding up of Severski Donets during 5th and have made on 6th of July all not less than 15 thousand persons (basically engineering armies and crews of tanks, to a lesser degree infantry).
Further. During fights for Hohlovo, Kiselevo and Sabynino - villages on east coast of Severski Donets to the north from Belgorod - 19th tank division in general has stopped the existence because of almost absolute decrease of the staff.
Further. Captured, grasped already by the end of Prohorovsky battle, unanimously asserted that fighting parts of all three German tank cases had at that point in time less than 40 % of the staff. The Esesovsky case, for example, incorporated in the beginning of battle about 86 thousand persons. Means, by the battle end in it remains about 34 thousand. Losses should make 52 thousand. In many battalions, under the statement captured, there was till 60-80 a person. On the tanks leaving repair, it was impossible to find crews, and they stood the immovable.
And at last, fighters of 96th tank brigade already on July, 14th under village Aleksandrovka were five are taken captured, including one officer, with the documents specifying that fighters belonged to 24 tank case which, under the statement of Manshtejna, was in a reserve and was in Kharkov and which ostensibly Hitler has forbidden it to touch. The Soviet investigation has fixed participation of some parts of this case still on 7th of July. At once there is a thought that, hiding from history participation of parts of 24th tank case in Prohorovsky battle, Manshtejn tries to diminish considerably the losses as the losses of this case suffered under Prohorovkoj, have been written off on other fights. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 17:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Koltunov and Samsonov are more then reliable and you know it. With this sources I want only to show that this battle is not so easy. Can you proove me that Frieser is reliable ? I wait. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Frieser, an accomplished historian as well as a Bundeswehr officer, originally had this seminal book published in 1995. Titled The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West ... The book is the German Army’s official history of the 1940 German campaign against France and the Low Countries. ... Frieser invested a tremendous amount of research in writing this book, as evidenced by its 44-page bibliography.
But I dont believe Frieser. This is the worst western propaganda I ever seen. This is a world record in lying. Ok, i proove you his unreliability.
1) By Overmans in July and August 1943 in Russia dyed 120.000 german soldiers. Only 40.000 in the Battle of Kursk ? But it must be at least (see Sokolov) 66%, but not 33%. It cant be true.
2) By Frieser the Germans lost in Prokhorovka only 3-5 tanks. Russians lost according to soviet sources 400 tanks. 1:80 ??? It cant be true.
3) Russians lost in this battle 886.000 soldiers and germans by Frieser 170.000. 1:5 ? In 1943 it was 1:2.5. But Kursk was soviet victory and in July Red army was much stronger then in January or February 1943. It cant be true.
4) By Frieser 14.000 dead Germans in Orel Operation. By Krivosheev 112.000 dead and missing Russians. 1:8 ? It cant be true.
I think this is enough.
You can not say that Koltunov is unreliable because of Erickson. And Samsonov because of his government. Very "good" proofs. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 11:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Glantz did not say that Germany lost in Prohorovka 5 tanks or in the whole battle only 170.000 soldiers. Answer my 4 questions. PROOVE me his reliability. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 17:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Frieser is unreliable. Germany lost even by Sokolov who uses german informations 360.000 soldiers, but not 170.000. Or are even german sources also unreliable ? Is it so difficult to understand ? 360.000 are much more then 170.000. Do you understand this fact ? My infos are already in article and I dont want to speak abou it. I speak now about Frieser. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 18:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I citate Sokolov:
Official figures of the Soviet human losses and losses in tanks and planes in Kursk fight have been published only in 1993 {30} the German losses have been exaggerated by the Soviet historians several times long before that. By their estimation, German losses have made about 500 thousand soldiers and officers, 1500 tanks and assault tools and more than 3700 planes. {31} these figures are very far from the validity. German losses in a manpower on all East front, according to the information given to the Supreme command вермахта (ОКВ), in July and August, 1943 have made 68 800 killed, 34 800 missing persons both 434 000 wounded men and patients. {32} German losses on the Kursk arch can be estimated in 2/3 from losses on East front as during this period fierce fights occurred also in Donetsk pool, around Smolensk and on northern sector of the front (in area Mgi). Thus, the German human losses in Kursk fight can be estimated approximately in 360 000 killed, missing persons, wounded men and patients, but in any way in 500 000.
But is is also false. By Overmans in July and August 1943 dyed 123.000 german soldiers and not 103.600. There are still 20.000 dead german soldiers. And at least 13.000 from them must dye in the Battle of Kursk. Or are Sokolov and Overmans also unreliable ? 360.000 losses in the whole Battle of Kursk are really the LOWEST NUMBER. My proove is perfect and the proovs of Hohum against Samsonov and Koltunov are nothing. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Upps I was wrong. By Overmans it were 130.429 dead Germans. There are still 27.000 dead Germans and at least 17.000 were killed in the Kursk Battle -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You can do it. But Sokolov is antisoviet historian. He takes always LOWEST german losses and highest soviet losses (not highest they are incredible). I say "Even by sokolov" because he is still worst that german historians. When Sokolov says 360.000 it were AT LEAST 360.000.
Do you understand because i dont believe german sources ? There are still 27.000 dead Germans. Their losses in Russia grow and grow. Today there are 130.429 dead in July and august but 2020 it will be already 170.000, 2040 200.000 and so on. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I notice that discussion has been abandoned, and edit warring is going on. I believe Igor is editing against consensus, and caution both Blablaaa and Igor that they are approaching a bright-line rule: WP:3RR. ( Hohum @)
I'd like to point out that i read very thoroughly all of your discussions and in some casses it was very......interesting....at least....But some issues are quite astonishing i must say...As a young historian, i admit, i can't believe what i read in few occasions. First of all, can someone of you explaine to me why are all Soviet sources all propaganda? Why is Manstein relevant and Zhukov not? Why is Koltunov as a direct participant irrelevant, or unreliable, and Manstein is reliable?By what criteria? In some casses Igor has a point. He gave you a reliable sources,Russian MoD, the works of Russian academics...and that all is Soviet propaganda?I don't get it. Gentleman with nick BLABLA likes the term Soviet propaganda, all is Soviet propaganda...and very very much likes to quote Glantz, Bergström, Frieser, etc...And what they say is a Holy Bible.THE SOURCE... But the same Glanz is perhaps most associated with the thesis that World War II Soviet military history has been prejudiced in the West by its over-reliance on German oral and printed sources, without being balanced by a similar examination of Soviet source material- end quote. From this encyclopedia...WITHOUT BEING BALANCED BY A SIMILAR EXAMINATION OF SOVIET SOURCE MATERIAL!!!! Which are of course all Soviet propaganda...according to some ... ;) You realise that i'm little bit confused about all this. I openly question the objectivity of the earlier menchend editor, and not just him. His line from month june, about 3-5 destroyed german tanks, and a vast number of Soviet...and his commentary after...Everything is on the page...And not just that...I thought that the first criteria of being editor of encyclopedia is objectivity.GENTLEMEN, there is no O of objectivity in your disscusions, or articles. This is simple outrageous. Every decent professor at any University in the world will tell you the same.No wonder people are laughing at Wikipedia-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 08:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Krivosheev is reliable, there is no question about it.I'm aware of wiki-policy about sources, reliability...ect. But Igor was on good lead, although failed to name appropriate references.Not defending him, some of his claims are pretty much for laughing…But regarding Aleksandr Mikhailovic Samsonov:
1) Krakh fashistskoi agressii : 1939-1945 : istoricheskii ocherk / A. M.
Samsonov. Moskva : Nauka, 1975.
2) Krakh fashistskoi agressii, 1939-1945 : istoricheskii ocherk / A.M.
Samsonov. Izd. 2-e, ispr. i dop. Moskva : Izd-vo "Nauka," 1980.
3) Vtoraia Mirovaia voina, 1939-1945 : ocherk vazhneishikh sobytii / A.M.
Samsonov. Moskva : Izd-vo "Nauka", 1985.
4) Vtoraia Mirovaia voina, 1939-1945 : ocherk vazhneishikh sobytii / A.M.
Samsonov. Izd. 4., ispr., dop. Moskva : "Nauka", 1990.
Official publisher is Soviet/Russian Academy of science.Well, he's a member of Academy of sciences, and as we know, not every professor can become a member, only one whith high research background.I'm aware of ideological burden though....Regarding German sources: many recent sources agree that German data are incomplete.Some of it is destroyed, some lost, some captured by a various Alied sides. Frieser is questionable. Only 3-5 tanks lost at Prokhorovka...C'mon Blablaaa. Your knowledge is huge, no question about it.But the numbers....Let's for the momment do a little bit of theory. Let's say Germans have 800.000 men for the offensive,(indulge me :) ) let's say they have approximately 3000 tanks...In the battle of such magnitude and with losses less then 10% of men and material, why retreating? We know already that in other battles the casualty rattio was far higher then that, and they still kept fighting. Alied invasion of Sicily is bad excuse...So again,why retreating? And quote:” Heinz Guderian wrote in his diary With the failure of Zitadelle we have suffered a decisive defeat. The armoured formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come. It was problematical whether they could be rehabilitated in time to defend the Eastern Front... Needless to say the Russians exploited their victory to the full. There were to be no more periods of quiet on the Eastern Front. From now on, the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative……” My question is where are those men and equipment? According to some of historians you are very fond of, Germans should won the battle. But…Soviets remain in possession of the battlefield after the battle .And the phrase “assanation of the field”… You know what it means. Counting dead and wounded, berried them, clearing wreckages of destroyed/abandoned equipment, and COUNTING… ect …Of course, Soviet estimates of German KIA/MIA/WIA are probably too high, but the number of destroyed tanks is by all logic correct, or at least nearly correct. So, Frieser estimates of the Germans losses at Prokhorovka just 3-5 tanks...ridiculous… —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sarcasticone (
talk •
contribs) 23:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC) --
Sarcasticone (
talk)
23:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the outcome of the battle i think you want to hear my honest opinion, so i will try to give you. People always forget that the german attacked kursk because the soviet allowed them this. People think before this battle was launched, germans had the iniative. They had not. The soviets were able to attack at every point some weeks after charkov. The losses sustained at kursk were pretty irrelevant for the war. even if the germans would have inflicted 1.2 million casualties. That the german exhausted themself at zitadelle is kinda incorrect the soviets simply unleashed several armies which started to push against the entire front. Multiple units had were rushed to other fronts like south and so on. In my opinion frieser has the best study regarding this. Please read it when you have time. People try to search for "turning points" and so on. When there was a turning point then it was early 42 when soviets brought more ressources to the front than german were able to destroy ( sounds weird but thats it ). After the soviets defeated the wehrmacht at moscow eastern front became a battle of attrition. This doesnt sound so cool like "oh the turning point, now the tide turned". Regarding Guderian, you should note that guderian was one of the people who heavily argued against zitadelle before. I dont discredit guderian ( i like him ^^ ) but you should take this into account if you want to base your opinion on the wartime comment of a general who got overruled. But when you bring a General then i also bring one , manstein said literally after prokhorovka "omg what a victory now we have destroyed all the reserve tank lets finish them", german commanders were so overwhelmed by the battle at prokhorovka. Well i never base my opinion on wartime comments, but if you hear manstein then you will question the soviet version of prokhorvka. And finally it was debunked. Are you able to read german i can give you a link to a study which deals only with prokhorovka. Blablaaa ( talk) 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Before the north retreated the losses there were actually lower than the losses in the south. I guess this can be explained with models hesitation to go all in. It is explained in the article aswell. After the red army pushed forward you are correct. Losing ground is bad for your tank strenght especially if you lose ground pretty fast Blablaaa ( talk) 08:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough…I have read Frieser. German speaking sources are no problem. Russias are, unfortunately. We need both. Objectivity issue…Less then a year ago we were doing research about war time propaganda. Of course no better examples then one in WW2. And we have come on something. On the youtube, (those miracle of modern technology… :) ) we find a loot of German and Soviet newsreels. Some about regarding the battle of Kursk. Also, we stumble upon on some kind of archival film. Number of what it seems to be an abandoned German tanks on some field. At first we thought that was from Stallingrad. It wasn’t. We where doing some counting. Approximately 100-120 of them. Mostly panzers3,4 but there were some Panthers also. No visible battle damage could be seen. In few cases only. . We contact the user asking about the origin of film. I’m afraid we where over-enthusiastic because only thing we learn is that is from some episode of Battlefield serial from Discovery and Millitary channel regarding Kursk. We contact them also but unfortunately got no reply. But most interesting was that in one German newsreel we collect the exact number of destroyed Soviet tanks and planes that Frieser gives. About 4000 planes… One more thing. There were a lot of German panzers divisions which borrowed their tanks to other divisions depending of their role and operational risks and tasks. That might explain why LAH had a larger number of tanks after the battle then before.-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 11:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, but what we saw was not the aftermath of the battle. And not about Prokhorovka. No smoking wreckages, like I said, just few of them where obviously damaged. it’s look like a vehicle repair depot, or some sort of storage yard, field maintenance depot probably, captured by the Soviets. Bad thing is that film last about 8 sec. And is cut of after. But in background there are more. We counted as much as i said earlier. In the Battlefield Series, film is long about 12-15 sec, depends of version. There are much more. Panthers and assault guns. This is the reason why we wrote to them, to find somehow real origin of film and its actual length. And of course, the source…Well, Ok, source is certainly Soviet side. As I said , no reply. It’s frustrating a bit. Concerning Frieser, it’s strange that his claims or his sources claims are the same as in German newsreels…Which is de facto propaganda. “LAH reported no reinforcements”. Well, it’s possible and likely. In the midst of battle, all that mayhem and carnage around ,confusion and so on, you don’t have the time to fill the proper papers, or worry about procedure. I was in the army, in peace time, of course, and I’m familiar a bit how things works. Nearby unit have equipment you need, call them and there is your reinforcement…One more thing, At that period, Elephant tanks were among Soviet soldiers known as a “ KING TIGER”, I just remembered your talk from earlier in discussion when I was not the participant. -- Sarcasticone ( talk) 13:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
About King Tiger… Yes, regular Tiger saw action at the eastern front in winter 1942/1943, Leningrad operational area. At that time hi didn’t prove itself, mostly because of mechanical breakdowns. So the Soviets where very well aware of it. Elephant was s surprise. I read a Soviet veteran confession about battle. At some point he started to talk about “King Tiger”. My reaction was like…what is he talking about? Then he explained. That was heavy tank, fixed turret, but without machinegun. He stated that they later find out that tank name was Elephant/Ferdinand…Concerning Frieser…first, planes. Second Frieser himself. He quote sources that wiki claims are unreliable. Koltunov and Rotmistrov. How source which is “state” reliable, could still be reliable if he’s quoting unreliable sources. That doesn’t make any sense. You catch my drift?-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
To Blablaa. Sorry but I mast address like this.I’m under fire by both of you. :) Regarding Frieser. I’m aware that he uses them to evaluate. But the fact he is using “unreliable” sources for evaluation and then decides are they goad or not without thoroughly research other potential Soviet sources concerning the matter is scandal par excellence!!! The numbers that bother me are Luftwaffe claims regarding Aircraft losses Blablaaa. 4000 Is simply rubbish. And find in german newsreel as I told you before. And he estimates. Who is he to estimate without proper sources or most important proper methodology (which is the first thing in any scientific work that matters) His methodology is dubious and questionable. His estimates are based on what? “Unreliable” sources that hi enterprets as he finds convenient, methodology which is none existent…He GUESS!!! Regarding Samsonov. Hohum claims doesn’t hold water. In the period when Samsonov began his work, Soviets openly denounce Stalin. In fact , all that post Stalin Soviet era is indeed quite different then what it was before. Of course , ideological burden is still present but in much less scale. About claims that Samsonovs work is government sponsored and published, yes, that is correct. But think of something. There were no private enterprises in Eastern block. No one else could publish or do anything about the matter if there is no state support. We cant dismissed Samsonov just because his work is sponsored by state. There is no other instance who instead of state will publish it. And something else. Samsonov research background is over 30 years long, with open access to Soviet archives. Ok, there is still ideological burden, like I said in discussion earlier,in much lesser scale and when you dismiss that, data seems to be pretty reliable. His references are very goad. Member Of Academy of Science. Not just books published, many other science works published. The fact that there is no review, or at list we didn’t find any satisfactory, is not enough for the claim that hi must be treated as a relict of a Cold War. And there is language barrier unfortunately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticone ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry about signature-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 11:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I must explain methodology issue further more. Methodology requires comparing sources. We can’t se that at Frieser. Second, it requires explanation of method which is used to get conclusions. Step by step. We can’t see that either. Out from nowhere he jumps with conclusions and numbers. How he has got that numbers we don’t have a clue. He offers no evidence to support his claims, He offers no method or explanation what kind of methodological work is being done to support his statements.It can be summarized as “I think”. Well, “I think” is not credible at this point. And precisely that is the weakness of Frieser.--
Sarcasticone (
talk)
14:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
To Hohum @. Maybe it seems I’m begrudging it. And if the people think I’m hater because of that then :_( … I’m just here to celebrate, worship and adore. :) We have the 12 principles and the 9 things , wiki policy and whole darn thing… But, if you have a little time and if I’m not asking to much of you, please send me the link to the specific site. As you said before, maybe I don’t realise the rigor that is being attempted here to ensure that wikipedia articles are of high quality, and not based on the personal assurances of every editor with an opinion. I suppose the site is
http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2. Is it?
Blablaa you don’t understand methodology issue here. You may have a million notes, it’s no goad without proper way of interpreting them. Method is the key. There is no sources for aircraft…and then he explains that he thinks…He explains without proper analysis, source, method…I’m amazed that historian with such background can show such ignorance about basic matters.--
Sarcasticone (
talk)
10:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hohum which specific part undermines Samsonov at that site? It is published under patron Of Academy of science and used as the official book for military academy and even for high school education. He research the subject with access at Soviet military archives. I explained why there is no other publishing source earlier. Take a look back into discussion. Maybe, just maybe google translation confused you. Context is rather strange when you use this gizmo. Blablaaa, Frieser uses strange criteria in his work, as I said before. Koltunov and Rotmistrov are reliable in some cases but in others they are not? Well, there is no such thing as the semi-reliable source. Source is reliable at full, or it’s unreliable completely. Half- reliable sources aren’t sources.I will no repeat my self concerning methodology. We all accept the claim that suicidal charge and ramming of german tanks at Prokhorovka were propaganda, yes? Pay attention at the “special guest star” of the show Blablaaa http://victory1945.rt.com/films/kursk-burning-bulge-1943/ Don’t worry it’s in English. After you see this, please explain how Frieser could still be reliable?-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 10:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I really try to be objective and not support any “side” but to support scientific method of finding out the truth. I don’t now how much you are acquainted with the fact that being a member of Academy of Science of any serious state (and I do hope we agree that previous USSR as well as Russia today, as USA, Germany, France, etc are serious states whether you like them or not) means that in every research you must use proper, adequate, reliable, and at last but not the least important, objective scientific methods. Such kind of methods are universal, nevertheless are supported from Communist or Capitalist state, private or any other non-private or non- governmental organization, because something is science or it is not at all. Therefore I’m more confident in reliability of Samsonov then of Frieser because he has had just one truth. One fact really supports my point of view because I was able to see as well as to listen the performance of the other scientist (Frieser) on western and on the eastern media. I was astonished seeing that it has been quite different, obviously adapted to the needs, attitudes and “official” history of the referring side. Suicidal ramming of German tanks is proven propaganda, but on the film showed at Russia Today TV Channel, Frieser said that it is real fact that it had happened, and in fact that is not propaganda. On the other side, for western audience it was, according to the same author, proven propaganda. I’m really not able to understand two scientific truths, from the same author. Are you?-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 16:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Time framme regarding ramming 20.min 04.sec. Russian historian speaking.Confirmattion Frieser. time frame 20 min 19.sec quote: Yes and produce strong psyhological pressure on Germans. The soviet tank crews went to their death honorably....--
Sarcasticone (
talk) 09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
--
Sarcasticone (
talk)
09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kurs was the largest tank battle of World War Two. The result was a tactical draw, but Hitler called off the attack. From this point on Germany found itself on the strategic defensive, while Moscow began an offensive push that would culminate in the seizure of Berlin. Most historians acknowledge Kursk as the swan song of German armored warfare. There are three reasons for this shared notion. The first is that CITADEL was the last time the Germans held the strategic initiative on the Eastern Front. Secondly, Soviet diplomats no longer demanded a second front from their Anglo-American Allies with the same vehemence as they had prior to the Battle of Kursk. Finally, the German panzer divisions never regained the relative or absolute strength they had enjoyed before the Battle of Kursk. Aside from this,historical interpretations of Kursk diverge sharply. The interpretations of the Battle of Kursk fall into five schools of thought: the German, the Soviet, the Western prior to Ultra declassification, the modern mainstream, and the modern revisionist. Those who fought on the Eastern Front or were either ardent Nazis or Cold War Communists belong to the first two schools of thought. The last three schools formed as time elapsed after World War Two and as information became declassified and therefore available to historians. The German school consists of individuals who believe that German failure at Kursk was not inevitable. For example, Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, stated that Hitler had stopped the attack too soon, a decision that he described as "tantamount to throwing away a victory." On the contrary, research shows that the German forces could not have achieved Operation CITADEL’s goal of a massive encirclement, let alone reduced the Soviet forces that would have remained in this encirclement. The evidence does indicate, however, that Hitler placed too many restrictions on his subordinates and withdrew the best armored formations too soon. Von Manstein’s statement is a perfect example of the German school of thought's inherent problem—rationalization and blame obfuscation. The basis for the German view is a tendency of defeated people to rationalize when looking back at the previous war, instead of examining objectively the reasons for their failure whether personal or national. The German school of thought often tries to place the point of Germany's downfall during World War II on Adolf Hitler's shoulders because of his “meddling” in the conduct of the war. Although there is some merit to certain points of this argument, its exponents seem to be trying to exonerate themselves and to deflect the blame from the rest of the German people, the German officer corps, the German armed forces, indeed, even Germany itself. In other words, this viewpoint attempts to romanticize and rationalize away the German reverse at Kursk and the destruction of the Third Reich in general. Out of the German school of thought come many works on the crucial battle at Kursk and the earlier Battle of Stalingrad. Representative defenders of the German viewpoint are Erich von Manstein, Martin Caidin, Paul Carrell, and F. W. von Mellenthin, among others. Because of their personal biases and outright attempts to pass on the blame for the failure of CITADEL and the war, their arguments and their information require cautious reading. They do make two valid points. First, Hitler waited far too long to execute Operation CITADEL, and, second, von Manstein's desire to keep attacking when Hitler ordered the end of the attack was the correct one, as German armored forces could have completed the destruction of the Soviet armored reserves. What von Manstein and the other proponents of this school do not adequately explain is how this feat of arms would have been achieved, nor do they explore the strategic-operational ramifications of continued attack while the Soviet counteroffensives that were occurring in the Orel bulge and along the Mius River. The Soviet view lies at the other end of the spectrum—the Germans were doomed to fail at Kursk from the beginning. These historians, for regime's political purposes, in some cases edited the writings of Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky, Marshal Sergei Shtemenko, Major General Pavel Rotmistrov, Marshal Georgi Zhukov, and other wartime leaders. Zhukov, in fact, found himself completely written out of official Soviet history, redeemed, and then again ignored as his political fortunes waxed and waned during the decades following World War. Buuuuut, in the end, we had instead of swastika over the Kremlin, cicle and hammer over the Reichstag…And that is a fact!-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 10:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Re Sturmvogel. Naive and foolish? Ohh, I tried so hard to sound intelligent… :_( But I’ll do my best now. Your continuous repeating that history is „puzzle“ has been a little bit tiresome because You have been „knocking at the opened door“. You have problem of having general overview that „puzzle approach“is not the exclusive right of the history as the science but of the all sciences because of the universal scientific principles. All of them have to obey such principles to be – a science. The main problem is the source of data (their reliability) that made the elements of that puzzle, and I think is the only thing we fully agree. I do hope that we also agree that evidence based science is the only real science. What is the main problem than? - Obviously the source of the evidence as the elements of the „puzzle“. Let us start with that. What are the sources of data of the author whose point of view you support? It seems from someone that was closely related with the events on the filed, may be witnesses’ or directs participants of the battle. It could be sources from the archives of Wermacht, Nacinalsocialists or similar. It is well known that both of these sources had excellent archives although it not sure how much of it had been destroyed or left behind. What is also well known that Nacionalsocialists have had the very good propaganda, not considering at the moment the level of the trust of the information for the public. Just from the professional point of view, it was in fact, excellent. Despite the trust or ethical aspect it had been so good that made the contribution to the development of some communication skills that we nowadays call as public relations. There is no doubt that at time it had been the best propaganda that had never be seen or used before. Why do you think that Soviet communist even and especially under Stalin „iron hand“, had had the better propaganda skills? Such opinion is to use your words - just foolish. But even if you think so, you have all the rights in the world to think different as I have too. The question is about the evidence related to the reliability of data – the elements of the puzzle that gives the advantage to one side – Your side. What are the evidence that the real data and not propaganda came from the masters of the war propaganda? I really do my best trying to explain my point of view that history is evidenced based puzzle, as the other scientific fields, so any further discussions about the subject above is just useless. RE HOHUM: Re Frieser clip. You obviously have the serious problem with your perception.....And, yes that text earlier was from 'Revisiting A "Lost Victory" At Kursk"' by Jonathan P. Klug, whose menthor was Glantz.-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 19:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
One more thing, regarding claim that Soviets didn’t want to admit tech superiority of their adversary falls because at first Victory parade in Moscow after the war Zhukov at his speech admit that. You can find full film at the YouTube with eng subtitles. And it’s remastered , in colour… :)-- Sarcasticone ( talk) 09:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
To my astonishment I find this discussion resurfaces across WiKipedia, whenever and whereever Soviet and by extension Russian battles and wars are concerned. There is a tendency from russian contributors to downplay russian casualties, wounded and to portray many battles who are internationally and by a consensus in academia regarded as Soviet/russian losses and defeats into the exact opposite and at best as draw or variations thereof. It is something that is disturbing and annoying and if not handled properly, will cast into doubt every article in which Russia/Soviet union is a part. This was the case with the article on the Winter war where Russians tried to establish completely irrational and unrealistic low casualty rates for the Red Army. It is the case in the Article on the war in Afghanistan 1979-89, where russians are trying to establish the contrefactual and revisionist claim that it was not an invasion as well as posting completely unrealistic low casualty rates as well. The same can be seem across the articles with revisionist and sometimes pure pre-1991 Soviet propaganda finds its way into the articles. This includes allusion to the wild claim that the fall of the Soviet union was a conspiracy by NATO in general and USA in particular.
As a writer it annoys me, but as a historian it deeply troubles me. The last time I saw a similar conserted effort to rewrite the facts to fit a specific political agenda was when Hitler and NSDAP rewrote the story of WW I to establish the myth of 1) german military invincibility and 2) Dolchstoßlegende ("dagger-stab legend") which claimed that the army, "undefeated in the field," had been "stabbed in the back" by civilian leaders and Marxists back on the home front.
Now I am not looking for a fight or undue polemic debate - but it is a generic problem which is also very clearly here.
And on a final note: Krivosheev is NOT infallible - he has produced much of the volume of his impressive work of figures previously confidential and from the Red Army. But that does not mean its accurate - by a long shot. Therefore the same procedures and techniques which any historical event should be subjected to so be applied liberally here. Which means that it is not the number of sources but rather their validity and international acceptance that should define their worth. Nick-bang ( talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I’m almost certain the last time You saw a similar conserted effort to rewrite the facts to fit a specific political agenda was before invasion of Iraq.--
Sarcasticone (
talk)
11:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)