User talk:Mrg3105/Archive 8

Let us work together

Dear Mrg3105, our discussion at AK was not the best example of collaboration out there. But I am sure you, just as I, want to improve this project and the articles. Please, help me by suggesting some compromise.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by compromise?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS covers its pretty well. How would you like the text to read? What sources would you use to reference your version? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe in consensus without establishing facts. If facts are established, there is no need for consensus. In any case, that is a guideline in constant development.

I have no problem in the article stating that the AK had a large membership, maybe as large as 400,000, but was poorly equipped which limited its effectiveness though it still achieved much. If you insist on stating this in a comparative way, then please use professor Cienciala's suggestion, and that of Cleo as a qualifiers that AK was the largest outside of the Soviet partisan movement until 1943, as Cleo suggested, when it was overtaken in both membership and capability by the better supplied Soviet partisans. I think it is important to show that large memberships do not necessarily translate into capability due to lack of arms, but that is also an argument that AK did contribute significantly to combat German forces despite this handicap.

I would discourage you from using the statement that Soviet partisans fought AK more then the Germans. Aside from the physical impossibility of this having transpired, most of Soviet partisan activity was directed to the East in cooperating with their Army and Front "handlers", so if any clashes did occur, they would have occurred in the immediate period before Bagration, and for a political reason we are all aware of. Other then that the Soviet partisans were just as short resources within the context of their operations as AK was, and probably saw the German forces in Poland as something out of their hands until Spring of 1944.

Cleo provided more English language sources, and if you are stuck for anything, just bring it up in talk.

So far as the various other forces AK interacted with, I really don't like using global identifiers like "Poles", or "Americans", or "whites", etc. I think you know what I mean. Please identify which groups AK dealt with because I think you can.

Just a note on the issue of structure, I find that the table of organisation is quite large, and breaks up the narrative of the article. You may want to consider inserting it after the epilogue, which is where I suggested the "after" section is moved to. It really is more natural to read the after-part after all the information you are presenting about the wartime events. This is how all the books I have do it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Professor Cienciala's in her email to me withdrew her qualification in light of the numbers I presented on our talk. Clio's not clear on which was the largest; I've asked her to clarify her position on that. I would agree that Soviets were likely better armed, although this should be clearly referenced. But if you want to claim they were the largest, we need to find a reference that states it clearly. This is demanded by our policies - WP:V and WP:OR (we cannot base a claim on our synthesis and worse, extrapolations, of several sources which are not clear).

As you will note, the claim that Soviets fought AK more often than the Germans does not appear in any lead; nor it should. It was the case limited to only part of Soviet partisans territory, as well as limited in time. That said there are plenty of sources that note that Soviet partisans decicated considerable effort to engaging the Polish ones in the disputed territories (Kresy). See also Soviet partisans in Poland.

AK dealt with too many groups. As I've noted, Jews, for example - it dealt with Jewish civilians and resistance. The heading "Interactions with Jewish civilians and resistance" in unwieldy. "Interactions with Jews" is better, and the word Jew is hardly an insult (just as the word Pole or an American isn't).

I see the epilogue argument, but I also would like to keep the history together (and in the opening section). If majority of editors would prefer your layout, I will not oppose it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I would really like us to finish collaborating on AK with a good feeling. It is my experience that often much good content and wikiunderstanding comes out from what have begun as less then perfect collaboration. Thus, I would like to ask - are you satisfied with current wording of the article w/ regards to AK size? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

23rd Motor Rifle Division

Hi Mrg, great additions for the last days of this formation. Reading through what you wrote however I'm still not completely clear what happened - just tricks of expressing oneself no doubt. Do you mean that the divisional commander decided to comply with the demands of the Ganja city people, but was stopped in doing so by the actions of some of his officers? Or some of the military equipment was given up but other equipment evacuted? Just wanted to get the sequence of events clear. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually expected you to ask this ;o)

The answer is that I'm still a bit confused myself, but could not spend more time on it. I have fallen behind a bit in the course I'm doing, so will not be in Wikipedia as much.

What I understand happened is that the Division, in fact all of the 4th Army, were ordered out. However, this was not a 100% strong division, and when it tried to leave the barracks at Ganja (second largest city), it was not allowed because the moves for independence were already in the air if you know what I mean. The division's and Army's staff continuously requested direction from MD and higher for weeks, and nothing happened. The city people were actually what soon became the national guard of Azerbaijan, and they took over the 4th Army although they had almost no qualified personnel, particularly officers. Some Russian officers stayed, but most non-Azerbaijani service personnel up and left when Soviet Union broke up. The division was supposed to proceed from its barracks to the train where it was expected to load. Most of it never made it. I have seen recollections of an engineer who was sent in by the MD to account for the engineering equipment in the division (each arm sent an officer from MD HQ), and the divisional chief engineer just waved his arms. In any case, soon it was completely out of everyone's hands after the Tbilisi agreement was signed, but fighting already started by then.

I'm a little confused about the officers I mentioned also. I think the author where I got this from was also confused. I can't see a colonel commanding a division unless he was a chief of staff or something, or deputy CO, but it is clear that the divisional CO (second mentioned) was very distressed; he had suggested that his officers were prepared to issue orders to fire on the crowd IF he received authorisation to do so from higher echelon, which he did not.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Two things- can you put the links to the websites here, so I can follow up with machine translation, and secondly, would you please add the book and publication date to 'Isby p.15' in the Suvorov article - right now it's not clear which book. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment

“ I find it fascinating that the article was protected by a Polish administrator (...) ”

May I ask what is so fascinating about it? It is Alden Jones who pointed my attention to the article, most probably because he's not a fluent user of the English language nad Piotrus was an involved party. With regard to your comment I feel obliged to ask whether you have a problem with my actions or if I would attempt to mediate the dispute? Миша13 18:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

Hi, Mrg3105 (that's so impersonal!) I've made a final statement on this subject on the AK talk page. Regards, Anastasia, aka Clio the Muse (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Soviet operations

Great. Please list both variations when you make the changes; we're not trying to impose one view of history, we're trying to improve accessibility, so people searching for both things will find them. Something along the lines of me leaving the term 'Balaton Offensive Operation' but putting Spring Awankening (sp I know) right next to it. How's your sections for the structure of the Ground Forces going? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets take each operation case as it comes up. I just moved the Battle of Velikiye Luki to Battle for Velikiye Luki (1943) given the first battle is not even covered by any English source.

I hadn't done anything this morning if that is what you are asking. Just go to my emails, and...

I did look at the Red Army article which will be merged into the SGF? The task is daunting, and I can certainly feel for David Isby when he wrote his book in the 80s. I have it somewhere, and may have to get it out.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be an EXTREMELY good book to get out; I've got the companion book on NATO, which has served me very well indeed. Using Scott & Scott as well as Isby would provide very good sources. My policy with the Red Army article versus a putative 'Soviet Army Ground Forces' or some such article is that when we get enough written, we can split 1917-45 and 1945-91. As soon as the Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces is ready, we take out the main link under Organisation to 'Formations of the Soviet Army' and substitute the Structure article, which will be more-embracing. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you have Isby you've practically got the article already -just write up two sentances on each branch from his material and insert a redlink to a future detailed article. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want my 2 cents, the Structure of the Sov GF is far more important; you've already got at 90% good listing of operations already - you could forget the final tinkering for a while. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Its in one of the boxes in the garage, and will have to wait until Tuesday :o\--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mrg, just wanted to say, suggest you leave off making any more edits to Str SGF until you've managed to retrieve the Isby book - it'll make it a million times easier. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

An RfC you might be interested in

Hello. You dropped by my talk page a while back and commented on some of my observations on my user page, so I wanted to let you know that an RfC has been filed on me. Please feel free to drop by and comment, if you're interested, one way or the other. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Military Reserves

I know we had our disagreements on the 7th Infantry Division discussion. But I have admired your contribution to military articles and was wondering if you would be interested in this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_reserve_force

I have added to it. Would love to have your imput. I feel that the articles on "military basics" such as the linked one are in need of improvement.58.65.163.248 (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only contribute as far as Australia and Soviet Union are concerned, and since Australia is already covered, I will add this to the Second World War/Soviet Ground Forces project. Soviet Union made the largest use of reserves during the Second World War, having separate and distinct reserve formations that included not only conscription reserves, but also the reserve Armies and even a Front that constituted the reserve of the reserve if this can be framed in this way.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your additions to the military reserves force page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_reserve_force). I feel that

i) Military reserve force should be one page and lists of reserves a different page.

ii) more work needs to be done wrt to the paragraphs on sources, employment advantages and disadvantages.

also I have rewritten the page on military reserve (the ones who are held back from a battle) here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_reserve). Your input would be very valuable. 58.65.163.248 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Military district

See [[1]]; I'm surprised you don't remember that you removed them yourself, in what I thought was an ill-judged action. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither. The U.S. U-2s mounted air reconnaissance missions over Cuba to look at the missiles, or to gather intelligence on the missiles, with the first being better. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So "air reconnaissance over Paris"? However, this seemed nonsensical to me since obviously an air reconnaissance mission would be 'over' the target of the mission! I found this also in one of the books (Help from above - first one I grabbed), so just put it down to bad editing.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd told you already I had a copy of the Spravchik (forgive my spelling) book in .rtf form (and emailed it to you). If it's that version, no I don't need it. If it's any other version, yes please send it to me. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If I give you a list of all the fortified regions for 1941 (in Russian), would you be able to add them to the relevant military districts?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. In fact I have enough material now to start an article Fortified Regions and just need to find out what categories to put it under. There would be 132 articles in all linked to it, and some would be linked to the Armies articles.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd want to call it Fortified Region, as it would be a specific type of military unit, rather than 'Regions', and thus it would go under Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet Union. It would be linked in the articles as 998th Dresden Fortified Region, until articles on individual FRs get created. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, right. Do you want to add this to your Soviet Army template? I have enough for stubs of some of the more engaged URs, but these are all from GPW and not the Cold War. I think there are also fortification categories that apply--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I would not want to add 132 more links to what is already a crowded template, and there are not Armies, though they may be equal in status to them. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that some Armies were created from URs. What would you suggest?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? As far as I know, they were all created from operational groups or corps - so which armies were created from URs? What would I suggest? When you've created (a) the main Fortified Region article, and (b) 10+ articles on individual fortified regions, and (c) know that you're going to be steadily creating more new ones that are more than two sentences long, create a new template of your own specifically for the fortified regions. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have to get back to the course now, but will keep you posted. Have to dig up all the information again on the Army/URs relationships. I will not be steadily creating articles, but will try to write the main article as an initial effort--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

30th Guards Rifle Corps

(od) Do you have any history on 30th Guards Rifle Corps, later 30th Guards Army Corps? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean after the war?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, primarily which Rifle Corps it was re-named from (the link I inserted in 23rd Army may help - it may have been formed new without having an existing Rifle Corps being raised to Guards status), combat actions, divisions assigned, etc, plus any postwar service. It was disbanded finally in 1997-8. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Armed Forces of Belarus

That's interesting; I had most of the OB but the badges are new. The key missing facts about Belarus are about the territorial troops/militia - can you find out anything about them? That would really be groundbreaking.. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any clue what they are called in Belarussian? Not only have the designations changed, but my Belorussian is not that good either.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No. However all the English references - Main 2003 from the CSRC, see the ref at the page - have used the term 'territorial defence forces.' Buckshot06 (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Its on the same site http://mod.mil.by/statyter.html but it doesn't say much. The term used is Territorial Defence Forces. They are formed primarily from economic considerations, and as I understand are voluntary, and based on the existing rayon administration because the missions are mostly logistic, civil defence and communications security. The first unit formed was apparently a cossack one! I'm loging off for tonight, cheers --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For example the Vitebsk rayon is - район территориальной обороны №4 (Витебский район) http://www.gorod.vitebsk.by/youth/polojenie.htm as detailed in the city ordnance ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ

об отделе по делам молодежи и оборонно-мобилизационной работе Витебского городского исполнительного комитета which looks after the "concerns of youths and defence-mobilisation work"! Seems like civil defence to me.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

BSSA

Surely you remember the history of that article? A quick check of the history confirms what I thought: it was user:W. B. Wilson who added the whole Sov OB section and has a hardcopy of BSSA. Did you forget that it was he who added it, or are you just thinking his referencing was incomplete? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he had neglected to properly reference the OOB, and you had pointed to it without so much as looking to see what the reference actually says, and it does not. As it happens the 42nd was not involved directly, but its subunits were, so I will reference the OOB, and then the units that took part.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I did check to say what the reference actually said, and only because I remembered that W.B. Wilson was the contributor did I do as I did. I trust his edits and his sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but his OOB is for March, and only for major units present in the operation. I had added the 42nd Army BECAUSE the tank battalions allocated to it were used with the 30th Guards Rifle Corps you had asked me to research. So in effect the 42nd Army CO was involved via his subunits even if his major formations were not. The two RCs which come up as separate were in fact under 42nd Army command, but not in March, later. I will try to find the reference for that. Do not misinterpret my inclusion of the 42nd Army in the OOB as some sort of insult to Mr. Wilson! I'm sure it was just an oversight on his part to fully reference the entry; no big deal. I do not view referencing in every case as an absolute necessity as you do, and judge each case on the merits. In the case of an OOB entry, it is obvious that Mr.Wilson did not invent it, and that I am not maliciously adding the 42nd Army because I feel like it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)