This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Tannenberg 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 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 30, 2015 and August 30, 2021. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tannenberg and Grunwald are different places and what we call Battle of Tannenberg happened in 1914 between Russians and Germans. How is this battle called ? -- Taw
Umm, Are you _sure_ that Grunwald was theme of Aleksander Nevsky? I always thought that it was about totally different battle! And Bohemians fough in Polish army too...
The Germans may have "redeemed" themselves by winning in the same location as the loss in 1410, but how exactly did they get revenge if they were fighting the Russians and not the Poles? Did Hindenburg really view this as "revenge", or is it just a poor choice of words? Appleseed 15:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I also think it has something to do with Russia pretending to be the Pan-slavic country that all slavs should live in, and proclaimed itself protector of all Slavs, hence why they backed up Serbia.
-- Jadger 03:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Kahn's Codebreakers indicates the Russian signals were encrypted, & broken by the Germans, not sent en clair. Can someone settle the dispute? Trekphiler 05:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I cannot find the article on the Tannenberg war memorial, perhaps something could be added at the end of this article, or if I am missing it, a link to the war memorial article. thanks -- Jadger 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me... but the conclusion "this battle lost the war" lacks anything even remotely close to logic. Could you please explain? The diversion of the troops was not an effect of the battle itself but of that of the German High Command DECIDING TO TRANSFER THEM. They didn't even take part in the battle so their transfer to the Eastern front is irelevant for the battle, as is the battle irelevant for their transfer. The troops were transfered to stop the huge Russian advance into Eastern Poland which (NOT to win this battle specifically), without this great and surprising victory, might have ended the war in 1914 in favour of the Entente. The decision was logical anyway... what proffesional soldier could have thought 1 army could defeat 2 armies on such wide front without any geographical advantages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makidonu ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone check into the Russion numbers? My reading indicates that Samsonov had 150,000 troops and Rennenkampf had 200,000, but the box shows 150,000 for both Samsonov and Rennenkampf. I don't think this is correct, but I don't have any resources handy at the moment. Perhaps the box is referring to those troops that were actually present at Tannenberg, but in this case, then Rennenkampf should not be listed as a commander. CrackWilding 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought the British and French were called the Entèt not allied. Allied they were named in the second world war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.209.35.73 ( talk) 07:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 3 contains the sentence, "The entire Schlieffen Plan was based on the idea of defeating France and England as quickly as possible, and then transporting their armies by train to the eastern front." I'm not sure that the entry of Britain was taken into consideration in the original Schlieffen Plan. Britain and France were not allies at the start of the German invasion and Britain only entered the war in response to Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality. Did von Schlieffen take British entry in consideration? -- Beetfarm Louie 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Were Hindenburg and Ludendorff really in command of the German army during the battle of tannenberg? In a history forum ( http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=282318) someone claimed that a certain Colonel Hoffman was actually in charge and reponsible for the victory, a wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hoffmann) actually supports this. Has anyone more knowledge about this matter? thestor 10:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the location of the battle be Hohenstein (the modern town of Olsztynek), instead of Allenstein (modern Olsztyn) as currently stated in the article? Olsztyn is located much more to the north and, moreover, it is in fact Olsztynek the place near Grunwald. -- 83.49.214.110 ( talk) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC) ( User Oersted from Catalan wiki)
I disagree here: The significant fighting was at Usdau to the West and at Bischofstein & Seeburg to the East, with Russian attacks taking place around Muhlen, Frogenau as is written in the article. So the width of the battle field was 40 miles or so. None of these places are especically "near" Allenstein. The large surrenders of Russian forces takes place between Niedenburg and Willenstein, again significantly distant from Allenstein. If you wish to record that the battlefield is near a town other than Tannenberg then Niedenburg is the more appropriate as it is central to the fighting and surrender and served as Samsonov's HQ for a few days. The town of Tannenberg did actually house Hindenburg's HQ for a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisionist99 ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The Tannenberg Monument was destroyed by German army engineers and not by Russians (Soviets?) and poles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.68.11 ( talk) 10:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
There are contradicting sections in the article referring to casulties on the russian side. Earlier, the were listed as 160,000 and now they are listed as 90,000. Yet the section called "The main battle (26 August to 30 August)" list them as 160,000 with 92,000 captured and 78,000 dead and wounded. The new numbers reference the book "Tannenberg 1914" by John Sweetman. I was wondering which numbers are correct? ChrisMKL ( talk) 10:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Could an editor here check the (very short) summary of this battle at World War I#Eastern Front and provide cites? Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The infobox has a marker next to Samsonov saying he was killed in action. But the text (which I've been able to confirm in a book) says that he committed suicide. Is this correct practice for military figures? That if they kill themselves (in this case as a direct result of military failure) they are still classed as 'killed in action'? -- bodnotbod ( talk) 11:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Battle of Tannenberg. Favonian ( talk) 20:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Battle of Tannenberg (1914) → Battle of Tannenberg – The earlier battle also known by this name is called the Battle of Grunwald on Wikipedia, so this battle is the primary meaning, the earlier battle should remain a hatnote. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
No figure is given for German prisoners taken. Does their large number of MIA (Missing in Action) indicate captives? Valetude ( talk) 15:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Samsonov's Second Army had been almost annihilated: 92,000 captured, 78,000 killed or wounded and only 10,000 (mostly from the retreating flanks) escaping.
Who's fantasies are this? Nor German, nor Russian sources have such ridiculous numbers
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Tannenberg 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 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 30, 2015 and August 30, 2021. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tannenberg and Grunwald are different places and what we call Battle of Tannenberg happened in 1914 between Russians and Germans. How is this battle called ? -- Taw
Umm, Are you _sure_ that Grunwald was theme of Aleksander Nevsky? I always thought that it was about totally different battle! And Bohemians fough in Polish army too...
The Germans may have "redeemed" themselves by winning in the same location as the loss in 1410, but how exactly did they get revenge if they were fighting the Russians and not the Poles? Did Hindenburg really view this as "revenge", or is it just a poor choice of words? Appleseed 15:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I also think it has something to do with Russia pretending to be the Pan-slavic country that all slavs should live in, and proclaimed itself protector of all Slavs, hence why they backed up Serbia.
-- Jadger 03:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Kahn's Codebreakers indicates the Russian signals were encrypted, & broken by the Germans, not sent en clair. Can someone settle the dispute? Trekphiler 05:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I cannot find the article on the Tannenberg war memorial, perhaps something could be added at the end of this article, or if I am missing it, a link to the war memorial article. thanks -- Jadger 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me... but the conclusion "this battle lost the war" lacks anything even remotely close to logic. Could you please explain? The diversion of the troops was not an effect of the battle itself but of that of the German High Command DECIDING TO TRANSFER THEM. They didn't even take part in the battle so their transfer to the Eastern front is irelevant for the battle, as is the battle irelevant for their transfer. The troops were transfered to stop the huge Russian advance into Eastern Poland which (NOT to win this battle specifically), without this great and surprising victory, might have ended the war in 1914 in favour of the Entente. The decision was logical anyway... what proffesional soldier could have thought 1 army could defeat 2 armies on such wide front without any geographical advantages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makidonu ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone check into the Russion numbers? My reading indicates that Samsonov had 150,000 troops and Rennenkampf had 200,000, but the box shows 150,000 for both Samsonov and Rennenkampf. I don't think this is correct, but I don't have any resources handy at the moment. Perhaps the box is referring to those troops that were actually present at Tannenberg, but in this case, then Rennenkampf should not be listed as a commander. CrackWilding 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought the British and French were called the Entèt not allied. Allied they were named in the second world war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.209.35.73 ( talk) 07:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 3 contains the sentence, "The entire Schlieffen Plan was based on the idea of defeating France and England as quickly as possible, and then transporting their armies by train to the eastern front." I'm not sure that the entry of Britain was taken into consideration in the original Schlieffen Plan. Britain and France were not allies at the start of the German invasion and Britain only entered the war in response to Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality. Did von Schlieffen take British entry in consideration? -- Beetfarm Louie 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Were Hindenburg and Ludendorff really in command of the German army during the battle of tannenberg? In a history forum ( http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=282318) someone claimed that a certain Colonel Hoffman was actually in charge and reponsible for the victory, a wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hoffmann) actually supports this. Has anyone more knowledge about this matter? thestor 10:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the location of the battle be Hohenstein (the modern town of Olsztynek), instead of Allenstein (modern Olsztyn) as currently stated in the article? Olsztyn is located much more to the north and, moreover, it is in fact Olsztynek the place near Grunwald. -- 83.49.214.110 ( talk) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC) ( User Oersted from Catalan wiki)
I disagree here: The significant fighting was at Usdau to the West and at Bischofstein & Seeburg to the East, with Russian attacks taking place around Muhlen, Frogenau as is written in the article. So the width of the battle field was 40 miles or so. None of these places are especically "near" Allenstein. The large surrenders of Russian forces takes place between Niedenburg and Willenstein, again significantly distant from Allenstein. If you wish to record that the battlefield is near a town other than Tannenberg then Niedenburg is the more appropriate as it is central to the fighting and surrender and served as Samsonov's HQ for a few days. The town of Tannenberg did actually house Hindenburg's HQ for a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisionist99 ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The Tannenberg Monument was destroyed by German army engineers and not by Russians (Soviets?) and poles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.68.11 ( talk) 10:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
There are contradicting sections in the article referring to casulties on the russian side. Earlier, the were listed as 160,000 and now they are listed as 90,000. Yet the section called "The main battle (26 August to 30 August)" list them as 160,000 with 92,000 captured and 78,000 dead and wounded. The new numbers reference the book "Tannenberg 1914" by John Sweetman. I was wondering which numbers are correct? ChrisMKL ( talk) 10:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Could an editor here check the (very short) summary of this battle at World War I#Eastern Front and provide cites? Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The infobox has a marker next to Samsonov saying he was killed in action. But the text (which I've been able to confirm in a book) says that he committed suicide. Is this correct practice for military figures? That if they kill themselves (in this case as a direct result of military failure) they are still classed as 'killed in action'? -- bodnotbod ( talk) 11:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Battle of Tannenberg. Favonian ( talk) 20:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Battle of Tannenberg (1914) → Battle of Tannenberg – The earlier battle also known by this name is called the Battle of Grunwald on Wikipedia, so this battle is the primary meaning, the earlier battle should remain a hatnote. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
No figure is given for German prisoners taken. Does their large number of MIA (Missing in Action) indicate captives? Valetude ( talk) 15:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Samsonov's Second Army had been almost annihilated: 92,000 captured, 78,000 killed or wounded and only 10,000 (mostly from the retreating flanks) escaping.
Who's fantasies are this? Nor German, nor Russian sources have such ridiculous numbers