| Revision as of 02:21, 24 February 2006 editAppleseed (talk | contribs)13,167 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:22, 12 April 2006 edit undo203.112.80.138 (talk) →EncryptedNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| 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. | |||
| See Solzhenitsyn's description (using research from the Ukraine) of dispatches proving far more effective. | |||
Revision as of 00:22, 12 April 2006
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)
- 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.