| Revision as of 11:01, 7 October 2006 editMakidonu (talk | contribs)15 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:25, 11 October 2006 edit undoEv (talk | contribs)13,000 editsm tabs & attributed unsigned commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| 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? ] 15:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC) | 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? ] 15:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :I've removed the following line from the end of the article: | :I've removed the following line from the end of the article: | ||
| : |
:''Hindenburg saw this battle as a fitting revenge for the defeat of the Teutonic Knights.'' | ||
| :Feel free to put it back in with an explanation or reference. ] 16:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | :Feel free to put it back in with an explanation or reference. ] 16:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| Kahn's ''Codebreakers'' indicates the Russian signals ''were'' encrypted, & broken by the Germans, not sent ''en clair''. Can someone settle the dispute? ] 05:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | Kahn's ''Codebreakers'' indicates the Russian signals ''were'' encrypted, & broken by the Germans, not sent ''en clair''. Can someone settle the dispute? ] 05:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| The latter explanation is the one I have seen up to now. However it might be worth looking into this. ] 11:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) | :The latter explanation is the one I have seen up to now. However it might be worth looking into this. ] 11:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | ::In the book August 1914 Solzhenitsyn cites the interception of "unencrypted signals" as of vital importance. As the battle progressed and lines of communication were breached- these interceptions became more frequent and disasterous for the trapped centre Corps. | ||
| ⚫ | ::Although, as encircling neared completion, a breakdown in communications occurred which rendered these intercepts as strategically less important. | ||
| ⚫ | In the book August 1914 Solzhenitsyn cites the interception of "unencrypted signals" as of vital importance. As the battle progressed and lines of communication were breached- these interceptions became more frequent and disasterous for the trapped centre Corps. | ||
| ⚫ | ::See Solzhenitsyn's description (using research from the Ukraine) of dispatches proving far more effective. {{unsigned|203.112.80.138|00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)}} | ||
| ⚫ | Although, as encircling neared completion, a breakdown in communications occurred which rendered these intercepts as strategically less important. | ||
| ⚫ | See Solzhenitsyn's description (using research from the Ukraine) of dispatches proving far more effective. | ||
| ⚫ | ==The Conclusion== | ||
| ⚫ | 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? | ||
| ==War Memorial== | ==War Memorial== | ||
| 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 | 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 --] 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| --] 03: |
:nevermind, I found it. --] 03:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | ==The Conclusion== | ||
| nevermind, I found it. | |||
| ⚫ | 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? {{unsigned|Makidonu|11:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)}} | ||
| --] 03:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:25, 11 October 2006
 | Military history: European / German / World War I Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: not checked
Revenge
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've removed the following line from the end of the article:
- Hindenburg saw this battle as a fitting revenge for the defeat of the Teutonic Knights.
- Feel free to put it back in with an explanation or reference. Appleseed 16:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- There were Russians at Grunwald (from Smolensk and other cities within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) and there were Poles at Tannenberg (as Poland was part of the Russian Empire). Moreover, Hindenburg saw the battle as revenge against Slavs, not Russians specifically. In Russia, the PLC is often called "Litovskaja Rus'", or "Lithuanian Russia", since it contained huge tracts of Kievan Rus' lands and one of its official languages was "Russian" (Ruthenian). Kazak 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, would you mind providing a reference? Appleseed (Talk) 02:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- AFAIK, there are no proofs of the presence of Smolensk units at Grunwald. Nevertheless, the Hindenburg's words seems logical. Teutons were defeted by the united forces of Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Lithuanians, Belorussians and Ukrainians) and the Kingdom of Poland (Poles). Possibly, there were also Russians from Smolensk in the army. In the 1914 none of those states existed any more, all of them were now provinces of the Russian Empire. The Empire stated itself as a rightful successor of those countries, so it was logical for Hindenburg to treat the defeat of Russia as a "revenge". User:AMartyn 11:10, 30 August 2006.
- Nevertheless, would you mind providing a reference? Appleseed (Talk) 02:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- There were Russians at Grunwald (from Smolensk and other cities within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) and there were Poles at Tannenberg (as Poland was part of the Russian Empire). Moreover, Hindenburg saw the battle as revenge against Slavs, not Russians specifically. In Russia, the PLC is often called "Litovskaja Rus'", or "Lithuanian Russia", since it contained huge tracts of Kievan Rus' lands and one of its official languages was "Russian" (Ruthenian). Kazak 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Encrypted
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)
- The latter explanation is the one I have seen up to now. However it might be worth looking into this. PatGallacher 11:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- In the book August 1914 Solzhenitsyn cites the interception of "unencrypted signals" as of vital importance. As the battle progressed and lines of communication were breached- these interceptions became more frequent and disasterous for the trapped centre Corps.
- Although, as encircling neared completion, a breakdown in communications occurred which rendered these intercepts as strategically less important.
- See Solzhenitsyn's description (using research from the Ukraine) of dispatches proving far more effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.80.138 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
War Memorial
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)
- nevermind, I found it. --Jadger 03:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The Conclusion
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)
Categories: