This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Nikolayevka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In Italy we call it "battle of Nikolayevka" because the place was named in that way on our military maps. Actually the village has been absorbed in time by the nearby city of Livenka (50° 27' 19 N, 38° 17' 32 E). You'll find Panoramio photos (not mine) by an Italian user as further proof of what I'm writing.
-- Basil II ( talk) 23:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of the article's title, is "battle of Nikolayevka" the name under which the battle is known in English? All of the sources are in Italian, and I can't check the book because I don't access to it. The reason for my asking is that even today there are about 200 places in Russia called "Nikolayevka", and there were undoubtedly many more in the 1940s. It just seems as an extremely ambiguous and meaningless name to me, and if it's not one that's used in English, perhaps changing it to something more descriptive would be of help?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It is quite obvious that the Californian newspaper Fresno Bee Republican, on March 3, 1943 carried out a story that was quite positive about the Italian Alpini. If in doubt check: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=LAUDS+ALPINE&btnG=Search+Archives&as_ldate=1943&as_hdate=1943 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioBerlin ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
"the only force that can regard itself as undefeated on Russian soil is the Italian Alpini corps"
this is a well known urban legend. There is no reference to this in Russian sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.37.50.172 ( talk) 16:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
??? that is a matter of fact, if you have evidences against please provide them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.85.62 ( talk) 20:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry in this article are mentioned some references. Did you read them? For example from the Rigoni's book you can learn that the alpini held the line despite the overwhelming attacking forces and left the trenches only when they got the order to retreat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.85.62 ( talk) 23:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I have added data and maps from reliable sources, that a BOT seems to cancel probably by mistake. Hope the BOT-error will not show up again.-- LoanP8 ( talk) 03:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys. No insult intended to Russains or Germans or Italians but how is this an axis victory? At most it's a phyrric victory/delaying action. But Stalingrad was encircled and this unit nearly destroyed... 79.136.64.95 ( talk) 21:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC) That's why it's a 'tactical' victory and not a strategic victory -- 2A02:2028:2C1:B5C1:304E:85B2:C6DB:9026 ( talk) 19:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and Rommel won Alamein's battle because He managed to flee Egypt -- Morenohijazo ( talk) 18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
That's just stupid and biased. In the Battle of Turtucaia, in World War 1, the Romanian troops were encircled and defeated, but 4000 troops managed to break from the encirclement and thus that force was saved, 4,000 troops out of 39,000, quite a bit better than the Italians here, who saved 4,000 troops out of 40,000. Yet, that was in no way a Romanian victory of any sorts, they were routed and pushed back, just like the Italians here. You have absolutely no common sense if you claim as a tactical victor the one who suffered 30 times more casualties against an enemy nearly 7 times less numerous! They were CRUSHED! A clear and shameful defeat that for some reason you and some others try to brush up and forcefully make it into a victory. This is clear ass-kissing to me. I know about ass-kissing the Germans, but ass-kissing the Italians? Really? They were the lamest! Even the Romanians were better fighters than them! A solid proof of that is that out of the 43 foreigners that were awarded the Knight's Cross, 18 are Romanians and only 9 are Italians. That and the fact that, at their worst, Romanians in WW2 didn't score more than 3 times their casualties. The Italians even managed to score over 26 times more casualties, as seen here.
Ah, the Italian invasion of France... "On June 10, 1940, Italy formally declared war on Britain and France [...] In the foreign ministry sardonic comparisons were drawn between Mussolini and the traditional circus clown who rolled up the mats after the acrobats completed their performance and demanded that the audience applaud him". Yes, it's Irving, but, you know the thing about Agamenon ant its swinehwerd... -- Morenohijazo ( talk) 23:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It's the same thing in ALL the fronts!! France 1940, Greece/Albania 1940, North Africa, URSS 1941-43... Italians reained UNDEFEATED because Enemy don't reached them!! Only in East Africa were defeated... because the Regia Marina couldn't help them to escape!! -- Morenohijazo ( talk) 23:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It was the same with the Romanians at Stalingrad! Most of the people were frostbitten and had only a handful of active tanks! Yet you don't call that a victory, right? Or would you, if they were FREAKING ITALIANS?! "The number of German awards means nothing", yeah, would you hypocritical piece of fecal matter say the same if most foreigners would be FREAKING ITALIANS?! Stop sugar-coating a CLEAR DEFEAT just to ass-kiss one of the LAMEST, most PARASITICAL countries in the whole war! Why, just WHY would ANYONE even THINK of ONE reason to ass-kiss the ITALIANS?! Also, I would watch my mouth before declaring any sort of war to a Romanian! You forgot about Mărășești?
Reverted again. Can you at least have the common sense to call it an Axis victory? Italy was helped by Germany and Hungary, and you call it "Italian". During the siege of Odessa, Romania was helped only by Germany, yet for some reason it cannot be called Romanian. That ain't fair. By the way, I suggest you should get a life and stop brown-nosing Italy. Because I won't stop. You want a war? You got a war! =_=
Okay, I calmed down now..I can accept this, even though I still don't see how it was a victory...I got mad because, every time we had some slight help in a battle, we have to share the victory with our ally at that moment. Battle of Oituz and Mărăști, WW1, no Russian commander and slight Russian help overall, still Allied victory. They just won't allow me to replace "Allied" with "Romanian". However, when the situation is the opposite, we are left out! Like in the Siege of Budapest, I had to change it from "Soviet Victory" to "Soviet Romanian victory", because that's what it was! This tendency of brushing the participation of "lesser" countries and emphasize the one of the "big" ones, regardless of their actual contribution, counts as ass-kissing to me. Or even worse, racism. Like when after several other countries joined the "Tripartite" Pact, it was still called "tripartite", even though it was blatantly obvious that more countries were involved. Seriously, with this kind of attitude towards their allies, no wonder that the Axis lost!..
I condensed the article significantly to remove dubious claims, myths, and POV language, as no sources have been provided since 2013. Please let me know of any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
How many axis soldiers? In the infobox:8.000 — 9.000. In the article "The 40,000-strong mass of stragglers—Alpini and Italians from other commands, plus German and Hungarian Hussars (Light Cavalry)". Nothing is known about the Soviet side:6.000 (citation needed). Maja33 NL ( talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
"Needs additional citations" is a gross understatement, since it has none. And almost everything I could find about this supposed heroic battle fit into three categories:
1) Basically copied from this page. (I recommend adding -"as a small part of the larger Battle of Stalingrad" from the lede to your search terms, unless you just want to be darkly amused by how many there are.)
2) Forum talk, widely contradictory, and/or bare claims with no sourcing.
3) world-war-2.wikia.org, which actually makes a decent attempt at looking reputable by apparently listing eight unique sources. The problem is, only three make any actual assertions about the battle. Those assertions fall into:
The one solid source I could find on it appears to strongly infer that while a battle/retreat did occur, the version of it being told in this article and elsewhere is just a thinly-fabricated heroic myth - mostly created by the alleged heroes.
The Italian War on the Eastern Front.
This appears to be a full-blown urban legend - i.e. an entertaining story that's only "true" because a lot of people are emotionally attached to it, so they keep repeating it.
2603:3023:306:2C00:1422:EC21:364C:DC19 (
talk) 07:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I attempted to look for sources, and was able to find this one: The Italian War on the Eastern Front, 1941–1943 Operations, Myths and Memories by Bastian Matteo Scianna (2019). The event is described as part of the mythology around the Italian Army in the German-Soviet war, and was apparently a minor engagement, with one battalion-strength unit and several companies on the Italian side. I've not located other sources. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The battle of Nikolayevka is back. . . It could be a good article if we also described the place of this battle in post-war Italian memory/myth etc. Has anybody The Italian War on the Eastern Front, 1941–1943 Operations, Myths and Memories?
Some points:
- the Italian article is worst than this one;
- Fyodor Kuznetsov was, at that time, the commanding officer of the Academy of General Staff;
- no source for Soviet casualties;
- the battle was between Axis forces and the 48th Guards Rifle Division. I put the divisional commander in the infobox. Maja33 NL ( talk) 20:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I personally don't have any idea how to undo it without bollocksing up the infobox, but this edit is false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Battle_of_Nikolayevka&diff=1041069465&oldid=1015930775
As both the original editor and a quick Googletranslate of the source can tell you, the original figures are correct and are specific to this "battle".
2603:3023:81D:100:15C9:6366:2CE6:1809 (
talk) 01:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I reverted the numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maja33 NL ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Nikolayevka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In Italy we call it "battle of Nikolayevka" because the place was named in that way on our military maps. Actually the village has been absorbed in time by the nearby city of Livenka (50° 27' 19 N, 38° 17' 32 E). You'll find Panoramio photos (not mine) by an Italian user as further proof of what I'm writing.
-- Basil II ( talk) 23:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of the article's title, is "battle of Nikolayevka" the name under which the battle is known in English? All of the sources are in Italian, and I can't check the book because I don't access to it. The reason for my asking is that even today there are about 200 places in Russia called "Nikolayevka", and there were undoubtedly many more in the 1940s. It just seems as an extremely ambiguous and meaningless name to me, and if it's not one that's used in English, perhaps changing it to something more descriptive would be of help?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It is quite obvious that the Californian newspaper Fresno Bee Republican, on March 3, 1943 carried out a story that was quite positive about the Italian Alpini. If in doubt check: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=LAUDS+ALPINE&btnG=Search+Archives&as_ldate=1943&as_hdate=1943 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioBerlin ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
"the only force that can regard itself as undefeated on Russian soil is the Italian Alpini corps"
this is a well known urban legend. There is no reference to this in Russian sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.37.50.172 ( talk) 16:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
??? that is a matter of fact, if you have evidences against please provide them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.85.62 ( talk) 20:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry in this article are mentioned some references. Did you read them? For example from the Rigoni's book you can learn that the alpini held the line despite the overwhelming attacking forces and left the trenches only when they got the order to retreat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.85.62 ( talk) 23:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I have added data and maps from reliable sources, that a BOT seems to cancel probably by mistake. Hope the BOT-error will not show up again.-- LoanP8 ( talk) 03:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys. No insult intended to Russains or Germans or Italians but how is this an axis victory? At most it's a phyrric victory/delaying action. But Stalingrad was encircled and this unit nearly destroyed... 79.136.64.95 ( talk) 21:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC) That's why it's a 'tactical' victory and not a strategic victory -- 2A02:2028:2C1:B5C1:304E:85B2:C6DB:9026 ( talk) 19:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and Rommel won Alamein's battle because He managed to flee Egypt -- Morenohijazo ( talk) 18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
That's just stupid and biased. In the Battle of Turtucaia, in World War 1, the Romanian troops were encircled and defeated, but 4000 troops managed to break from the encirclement and thus that force was saved, 4,000 troops out of 39,000, quite a bit better than the Italians here, who saved 4,000 troops out of 40,000. Yet, that was in no way a Romanian victory of any sorts, they were routed and pushed back, just like the Italians here. You have absolutely no common sense if you claim as a tactical victor the one who suffered 30 times more casualties against an enemy nearly 7 times less numerous! They were CRUSHED! A clear and shameful defeat that for some reason you and some others try to brush up and forcefully make it into a victory. This is clear ass-kissing to me. I know about ass-kissing the Germans, but ass-kissing the Italians? Really? They were the lamest! Even the Romanians were better fighters than them! A solid proof of that is that out of the 43 foreigners that were awarded the Knight's Cross, 18 are Romanians and only 9 are Italians. That and the fact that, at their worst, Romanians in WW2 didn't score more than 3 times their casualties. The Italians even managed to score over 26 times more casualties, as seen here.
Ah, the Italian invasion of France... "On June 10, 1940, Italy formally declared war on Britain and France [...] In the foreign ministry sardonic comparisons were drawn between Mussolini and the traditional circus clown who rolled up the mats after the acrobats completed their performance and demanded that the audience applaud him". Yes, it's Irving, but, you know the thing about Agamenon ant its swinehwerd... -- Morenohijazo ( talk) 23:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It's the same thing in ALL the fronts!! France 1940, Greece/Albania 1940, North Africa, URSS 1941-43... Italians reained UNDEFEATED because Enemy don't reached them!! Only in East Africa were defeated... because the Regia Marina couldn't help them to escape!! -- Morenohijazo ( talk) 23:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It was the same with the Romanians at Stalingrad! Most of the people were frostbitten and had only a handful of active tanks! Yet you don't call that a victory, right? Or would you, if they were FREAKING ITALIANS?! "The number of German awards means nothing", yeah, would you hypocritical piece of fecal matter say the same if most foreigners would be FREAKING ITALIANS?! Stop sugar-coating a CLEAR DEFEAT just to ass-kiss one of the LAMEST, most PARASITICAL countries in the whole war! Why, just WHY would ANYONE even THINK of ONE reason to ass-kiss the ITALIANS?! Also, I would watch my mouth before declaring any sort of war to a Romanian! You forgot about Mărășești?
Reverted again. Can you at least have the common sense to call it an Axis victory? Italy was helped by Germany and Hungary, and you call it "Italian". During the siege of Odessa, Romania was helped only by Germany, yet for some reason it cannot be called Romanian. That ain't fair. By the way, I suggest you should get a life and stop brown-nosing Italy. Because I won't stop. You want a war? You got a war! =_=
Okay, I calmed down now..I can accept this, even though I still don't see how it was a victory...I got mad because, every time we had some slight help in a battle, we have to share the victory with our ally at that moment. Battle of Oituz and Mărăști, WW1, no Russian commander and slight Russian help overall, still Allied victory. They just won't allow me to replace "Allied" with "Romanian". However, when the situation is the opposite, we are left out! Like in the Siege of Budapest, I had to change it from "Soviet Victory" to "Soviet Romanian victory", because that's what it was! This tendency of brushing the participation of "lesser" countries and emphasize the one of the "big" ones, regardless of their actual contribution, counts as ass-kissing to me. Or even worse, racism. Like when after several other countries joined the "Tripartite" Pact, it was still called "tripartite", even though it was blatantly obvious that more countries were involved. Seriously, with this kind of attitude towards their allies, no wonder that the Axis lost!..
I condensed the article significantly to remove dubious claims, myths, and POV language, as no sources have been provided since 2013. Please let me know of any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
How many axis soldiers? In the infobox:8.000 — 9.000. In the article "The 40,000-strong mass of stragglers—Alpini and Italians from other commands, plus German and Hungarian Hussars (Light Cavalry)". Nothing is known about the Soviet side:6.000 (citation needed). Maja33 NL ( talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
"Needs additional citations" is a gross understatement, since it has none. And almost everything I could find about this supposed heroic battle fit into three categories:
1) Basically copied from this page. (I recommend adding -"as a small part of the larger Battle of Stalingrad" from the lede to your search terms, unless you just want to be darkly amused by how many there are.)
2) Forum talk, widely contradictory, and/or bare claims with no sourcing.
3) world-war-2.wikia.org, which actually makes a decent attempt at looking reputable by apparently listing eight unique sources. The problem is, only three make any actual assertions about the battle. Those assertions fall into:
The one solid source I could find on it appears to strongly infer that while a battle/retreat did occur, the version of it being told in this article and elsewhere is just a thinly-fabricated heroic myth - mostly created by the alleged heroes.
The Italian War on the Eastern Front.
This appears to be a full-blown urban legend - i.e. an entertaining story that's only "true" because a lot of people are emotionally attached to it, so they keep repeating it.
2603:3023:306:2C00:1422:EC21:364C:DC19 (
talk) 07:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I attempted to look for sources, and was able to find this one: The Italian War on the Eastern Front, 1941–1943 Operations, Myths and Memories by Bastian Matteo Scianna (2019). The event is described as part of the mythology around the Italian Army in the German-Soviet war, and was apparently a minor engagement, with one battalion-strength unit and several companies on the Italian side. I've not located other sources. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The battle of Nikolayevka is back. . . It could be a good article if we also described the place of this battle in post-war Italian memory/myth etc. Has anybody The Italian War on the Eastern Front, 1941–1943 Operations, Myths and Memories?
Some points:
- the Italian article is worst than this one;
- Fyodor Kuznetsov was, at that time, the commanding officer of the Academy of General Staff;
- no source for Soviet casualties;
- the battle was between Axis forces and the 48th Guards Rifle Division. I put the divisional commander in the infobox. Maja33 NL ( talk) 20:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I personally don't have any idea how to undo it without bollocksing up the infobox, but this edit is false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Battle_of_Nikolayevka&diff=1041069465&oldid=1015930775
As both the original editor and a quick Googletranslate of the source can tell you, the original figures are correct and are specific to this "battle".
2603:3023:81D:100:15C9:6366:2CE6:1809 (
talk) 01:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I reverted the numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maja33 NL ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)