Talk:Army Group Courland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Latvia (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

At capitulation AGC comanded by Gilpert or Hilpert[edit]

This Russian New Agency (RIA Novosti) source states:

At 11 p m on May 8, between TUKUMUS and LIBAVA, the German Army Group Kurland, consisting of the 16th and 18th Field Armies and commanded by General of Infantry Gilpert, stopped resistance and started turning personnel and combat equipment over to the troops of the LENINGRAD Front.

But this article based on Hans Dollinger'sG The Decline an Fall of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan - Page 290 that Carl Hilpert, surrended Army Group Courland on Karl Dönitz orders.

However May 12nd, 1945 (From the Soviet Information Bureau Our Victory) part of the RIA Novosti 60 anniversary of surrender project notes that Hilpert was commander of the XXXVIII Corps, it explains why only 3 divisions surrenderd with him.

It is possible that the Russian source which is based on Russian news agency reports of the day are not accurate so can someone please verify that the distallation of the Hans Dollinger source for this Wikipedia article is is correct and check the source he used for the information. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In Russian there is no letter which corresponds to a "H" the usual method of translitatering foreign words that begin with H is to user "Г" which is also used for "G" Thus Hilpert would be written ГИЛПЕРТ in Russian and was probably translated back incorrectly as Gilpert.

merge into Army Group Courland[edit]

It has been suggested that this article be merge into Army Group Courland --Philip Baird Shearer 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: The above note refers to Courland Pocket. 'Army Group Courland' is about a specific German unit, whereas the Courland Pocket article needs to cover ground outside the scope of 'Army Group Courland'. For instance, Battle of Courland redirects to 'Courland Pocket'. This proposed merger would be much the same as merging Battle of Britain into Luftwaffe or into Royal Air Force. Xn4 03:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as per Xn4. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.Besides the reasons given in the first Oppose, the Courland Pocket actually needs to be renamed according tot he Soviet Operation that created it. It reflects only the end state of the operation as viewed ffrom the inside, and not the whole operation description that created it. -- mrg3105mrg3105 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I'll remove the tags. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: a bit belated (though tag still here), per Xn4. —PētersV (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Was the AG Courland defeated[edit]

There is a suggestion that the AG was never "defeated in the field". IMHO the AG was cornered and had no opportunity to take to the field, and regardless of who gave the order, by May 9, 1945 it had been defeated, or would have been if it kept on fighting even if the surrender order was not given. Defeat is not based on the local chain of command, but the highest chain of command, or severing of the chain due to enemy action, as in the case of the 6th Army at Stalingrad. In this case the chain of command was not broken, and remained the slender radio communication, which enabled the higher echelon to order the AG to surrender, therefore it was defeated.

Any other views?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this depends on the definition of defeated that you use, in a strict sense they were part of a defeated nation. However "defeated in the field" points to defeat in actual combat. The AG Courland was not defeated in actual combat (even though it would/might/wouldn't etc. have been) so remained undefeated in the field. I don't think it matters whether a chain of command all the way to the top still existed. I think it can be compared to the East African Campaign of WW1, German forces there were also undefeated in the field, but in the end defeated because German capitulation. In the articles about East Africa the Germans are also said to be unbeaten. There are probably other examples that I can't think of now. The point is defeat in the field is different from defeat of a nation and it's armed forces on the whole. Wiki1609 (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The Latvian version of the battle of the Courland pocket is that the Latvians and Germans held out until the end of the war. The Latvians were hoping that, just as in WWI, holding on to the western end of Courland could be the nucleus for keeping an independent Latvia alive. In any event, the Soviets did not take the Courland pocket before the end of the war, ergo no Soviet victory, no German/Latvian defeat. —PētersV (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No one really cares about the Latvian version since Latvia was not a belligerent state.
However, there is no possibility of "defeating someone in the field" when they are NOT in the field! The Nazi forces were in a cauldron with their backs to the sea! They were not "defeated in the field" because they were besieged, but the Soviet command did not see a necessity in wasting life needlessly on an objective which wasn't going anywhere. They were defeated by the virtue of their inability to escape this siege. Would you have preferred that they al starved to death sometime in the Summer of 1945?
Did anyone really imagine that "holding out" would "be the nucleus for keeping an independent Latvia alive" when there had not been an independent Latvia since 1940?! What possible pretext would convince Stalin to create an independent Latvia for people who were fighting with the Nazi Germany? These are a farcical arguments, worse even then blatant OR. If it is not removed, I will take it to a wider community.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You asked for editorial (mine is an editorial, not personal opinion) and you pull out your blunderbuss in lieu of writing something indicating you're well informed on the topic and not just here you push Soviet victory as a POV. The Latvians ABSOLUTELY held out hope, they had done it once before. The Latvians stalemating against the Red Army in Courland in WWII (Soviet losses were monumental) is directly compared in military achievement to Latvia's War of Independence and earlier historical legendary confrontations. —PētersV (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. We know what Stalin wanted starting from the attempted Estonian putch in the 20's to his unprovoked attack on Finland when it declined Stalin's "mutual assistance" (Pravda called the Finnish prime minister a monkey or some-such) to his unprovoked illegal invasion and brutal subjugation of the Baltics. What Stalin wants or is willing to do is not a barometer by which to judge what his victims desire or whether or not Stalin "defeated" them. —PētersV (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That is no OR - any school book on Latvian history will include it as fact and it has nothing to do with Stalin. But this isn't related to what Latvians hoped. Pondering weather they would be defeated on other hand is OR (unless someone finds some alternative history publication - that would be interesting enough to include, though not as fact), because no one will ever know. What we know is that they controled this territory until the end of the war and no army had taken the territory from them, so they weren't utterly defeated.There is no reason to say that they were defeated, if they surrendered only after receiving an order ~~Xil * 14:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And "in the field" does not mean they have to be in a field of grass or something, in the field roughly means that you are still effectively controlling territory and can respond to enemy actions and this the Courland group could. Soviet forces indeed bypassed the Courland but they did this because afaik they were (initially) still too powerful to be defeated. If an inability to escape a siege is a defeat, then so is the inability to win a siege so your argument there is flawed. There's simply the facts that the Courland group was still intact as a cohesive fighting force, meaning they were not defeated as a Kampfgruppe, period. That the rest of Germany was being overrun by Soviets and Western Allies does not really matter. And mrg3105 you show a lack of understanding of diplomacy surrounding Eastern Europe during WW2, the baltic states were illegally occupied by the Soviet Union and many balts therefore expected the Western Allies, with their propagated goals of collective security and self-rule, to call for their independence. That that didn't happen was because of geopolitical considerations, failed diplomacy on the US side, and in an effort to keep upholding the wartime alliance shortly after the peace. Wiki1609 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Latvian version of history is largely written by Latvians, for Latvians.
Defeated in the field means - "was the defeat of an army whose physical and moral resources were exhausted, an army having nothing left with which to fight."[1] which seems to me to fairly well describe the situation in the Courland cauldron. This is besides the point that German, and Latvian, troops had ended up in a state of siege because they were defeated in the field beforehand, and were unable to manoeuvre their way out of the cauldron to German-held territory. They had no options!
"Latvians stalemating against the Red Army in Courland in WWII" - I can only suggest you start reading some books, or at least look at the map. What "stalemating "?! They had nowhere to go! The Germans had run out of fuel, and rations were minimal.
"directly compared in military achievement to Latvia's War of Independence and earlier historical legendary confrontations" - "legendary" in Latvian eyes only. As I recollect the Russian Empire disintegrated, and Latvians, along with other nationalities took the opportunity to declare independence while being occupied by German troops.
"What Stalin wants or is willing to do is not a barometer" - I beg to differ given he was the head of Stavka. And since when did Latvian combat troops (your statement) become "victims"?
"any school book on Latvian history" - I hope you can bring better English language sources though...
"they controlled this territory until the end of the war and no army had taken the territory from them" - is this a joke? Blockade is a military strategy which is just as valid as an all out assault! Germans did it around Leningrad for three years! Where does it say that sieges do not constitute a form of defeat when a force that is besieged surrenders as a result of one? They "controlled" the territory because they had no choice! I would not call that control of anything, since the basic possibility of manoeuvre was denied.
Manoeuvre is what "in the field" means, and not "roughly means that you are still effectively controlling territory and can respond to enemy actions". What you describe is called a Defensive fighting position which can only end in a Defeat in detail, which, strategically for the Wehrmacht, it did.
"Soviet forces indeed bypassed the Courland, but they did this because afaik they were (initially) still too powerful to be defeated." - no, this is only your opinion. Red Army did so because Berlin was the ultimate goal of the Soviet command, and because isolation of a large number of troops from fighting, is better then having to fight them for another few months (see above Defeat in detail).
"If an inability to escape a siege is a defeat, then so is the inability to win a siege so your argument there is flawed." - But the Red Army did win the siege, and the war! The siege was ended with surrender. This means there was no hope of relief. Its a fallacious argument to say that the besieged were only defeated because they were ordered to surrender. They were a part of a total Wehrmacht organisation, not an independent force of "a state named Courland"! What do you think would have happened if they had not surrendered as ordered? What options, military or political did the German commander in the cauldron have?
"the Courland group was still intact as a cohesive fighting force" - this is like saying that a jail inmate has "long term housing security" Ha Ha. In any case, they were caught in a cauldron to prevent them being a fighting force. I would have though this would be obvious from the content of the article, but maybe I will need to clarify this point
"That the rest of Germany was being overrun by Soviets and Western Allies does not really matter." - hmmm, let me see, yes, I think you are right. I have consulted my edition of the Latvian history school book, and it says that "the German forces in Courland in 1945 had developed the ability to eat soil, and invented magic spells to down Soviet aircraft, while their officers carried special secret weapon energy-shields (Teutonic of course) that deflected Soviet artillery rounds."
"mrg3105 you show a lack of understanding of diplomacy surrounding Eastern Europe during WW2" - while this is not the subject of the article, and I had not even attempted to display my understanding of diplomacy, you can not be seriously suggesting that the Latvians expected the Western Allies to go to war over them being trapped in Courland? You can not be seriously suggesting that Roosevelt and Churchill would change their mind on the partition of Europe during the Yalta Conference (5 months after start of the Courland blockade) based on Latvian, and even all of the Baltic representative's hopes and petitions during the war? I should award you the "Patton barnstar" for this interesting suggestion. Clearly you have an understanding of diplomacy I had never dreamed of, or seen suggested anywhere in authoritative sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 01:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) "Latvians stalemating against the Red Army in Courland in WWII" and "they had nowhere to go." ... Come on, now! Stalin threw in division after division in an attempt to annihilate the Germans and Latvians. He didn't bypass Courland because it had no strategic value--that's your personal opinion WP:OR contention. He sent hundreds of thousands of troops to their deaths insisting Courland be taken. Just in the 6th battle of the Courland pocket (the last), the Soviets lost 74,000. ... found one source of figures: Soviet losses of 320,000 soldiers (killed, wounded, taken prisoner) and losses in material of 2,388 tanks, 659 planes, 900 cannons, and 1,440 machine-guns. —PētersV (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
and on "You can not be seriously suggesting that Roosevelt and Churchill would change their mind on the partition of Europe during the Yalta Conference (5 months after start of the Courland blockade) based on Latvian, and even all of the Baltic representative's hopes and petitions during the war?" You really are misinformed. Roosevelt had already given the Baltics to Stalin in Teheran long before Yalta and Eden was already offering the Baltics on a plate back in 1942. Roosevelt's and Churchill's personal commitments to Stalin were, of course, all completely secret and only became known after the war. Yalta was nothing more than a rubber stamp. I don't think the Latvians declared a national committee in Courland in Liepaja, in March 1945 just for show--neither they nor the rest of Eastern Europe knew what Roosevelt and Churchill had wrought. At least Churchill lived to regret what he did to the Baltics and Eastern Europe.—PētersV (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Always good to see you cite your sources ;o) The Courland blockade lasted from the 16 February 1945 to the end of he war. I'd say that qualifies for "bypass".
Stalin, well the General Staff, did send hundreds of thousands to secure the blockade, 429,230 to be precise, but only 30,501 actually died in the operation. (Krivoshein) So where is it that you got your information Mr.PētersV?
What was the strategic value of Courland?
The blockade was begun by the 2nd Baltic Front, but on the 1 April was reduced to a Group of eight Armies (one Air), many drawn from the Leningrad Front which was largely a rear-echelon by then.
So where is the source for the "six major defensive battles fought by the Wehrmacht forces in the Courland Pocket between 15 October, 1944, and 4 April, 1945"?
1. From 15 October, 1944, to 22 October, 1944 - retreat of AG Nord
2. From 27 October, 1944, to 25 November, 1944 - retreat of AG Nord to the Courland position
3. From 23 December, 1944, to 31 December, 1944 - successful retention of LoC with AG Mitte
4. From 23 January, 1945, to 3 February, 1945 - Last successful retention of LoC
5. From 12 February, 1945, to 19 February, 1945 - attempted breakout that initiated Soviet offensive a week later
6. From 17 March, 1945, to 4 April, 1945 - a series of tactical battles fought along the perimeter with Soviet troops after evacuation of some troops (SS and heavy tanks) from Courland
I'd say its a German source because the timeline overlaps other operations during their retreat and the attempts to restore communications between the AG Nord and the rest of German Army.
In reality the decision on the fate of the troops in Courland was accepted on the 26 January and attention was refocused on Konigsberg. There were military and political reasons for this, and the city was much better prepared for a siege, and could, due to its proximity, pose a strategic danger in the Soviet offensive into Germany proper. For this reason Konigsberg was stormed, and the Courland peninsular was not. It does not mean the Red Army sat idle for three months, but neither does it mean that they "sent hundreds of thousands of troops to their deaths".
I am not misinformed; its just that you have problems with dates. Yalta was the last time to ask anyone about Latvian independence because it was contemporaneous with the Courland blockade, based on your argument. National committee in Liepaja was pretty much a joke. Who was going to recognise it, what with Latvia mostly over-run by the Red Army. However, this has nothing to do with the subject of the discussion.
You should really read the excellent series of articles recently produced by another editor on the causes of the Courland Pocket before declaring that the AG Courland was never defeated in the field. It was in fact thrashed as AG Nord--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 04:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The article currently reads:

The army group remained isolated until the end of World War II in Europe, but was never defeated in the field. The Army Group surrendered only when the Nazi government capitulated and ordered all units to surrender.

Which is technically wrong because the Nazi government did not surrender, it was the German Armed forces that surrendered (See the article End of World War II in Europe for details). One can argue (as Hitler did) that the German Army at the end of World War I was not defeated in the field, because it was a civilian request for an armistice but as the usually this claim is not made for the German armed forces at the end of World War II.

One can say that Army Group Courland did not capitulate until the general capitulation but to claim that they were not defeated in the field would mean that any unit in any war that is ordered to surrender rather than continue a pointless struggle is not defeated in the field -- this is not the usual definition for this statment. For example at the fall of Singapore there were a number of divisions on the island when the commanding officer General Percival ordered his divisional commanders to surrender; were those divisions undefeated in the field? If not then what is the difference here because just as Percival ordered his divisional commanders to surrender so too did the German high command order this force to surrender. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation, section break[edit]

(outdent again) The Encyclopedia Latvija has all the Courland operations described in voluminous detail. So, quickly (mrg3105's in italics):

  • Alas, "30,501" is hardly possible, as the Latvians who were fighting with the Soviets counted up 74,000 in one battle. Stalin was covering up his horrific losses. Doesn't fit with the "glorious victory" mantra.

[citation needed] (other then Encyclopedia Latvija)

  • Alas, it's not about "the strategic value of Courland" per your definition: the road to Berlin and defeat of Nazi Germany. It's about the symbolic value of Courland to Stalin. Stalin was intent on wiping out Latvia, the Germans were not the primary target.
    • I'm sorry to say this, but this is the silliest thing I have heard. Symbols mean nothing in war, and Berlin was a far greater symbol then all of Latvia put together.
  • Alas, my excrutiatingly detailed source also discusses the various major operations (your 1-6) though I have not gone back to check the exact dates.

[citation needed] (other then Encyclopedia Latvija)

  • Alas, "For this reason Konigsberg was stormed, and the Courland peninsular was not," your sources (30,000 dead) and German estimates of (and Latvian verification) of ten times more casualties indicated Stalin repeatedly stormed Courland, and failed.

[citation needed] (other then Encyclopedia Latvija)

  • Alas, on "Yalta was the last time to ask anyone about Latvian independence because it was contemporaneous with the Courland blockade, based on your argument. National committee in Liepaja was pretty much a joke. Who was going to recognise it, what with Latvia mostly over-run by the Red Army. However, this has nothing to do with the subject of the discussion." It does have something to do with your earlier derisions of Latvians believing there was any hope for holding on to enough of Latvia to keep a beachhead from which to save Latvian sovereignty on Latvian soil.
    • I do not understand what you are trying to say above, but I do know that the Latvian troops in Courland were Waffen SS...enough said
  • Alas, you believe that Courland (per the Soviet version, including 30,000 lost) was a bypassed wart on the way to victory. I believe (per the Latvian version, documented in excrutiating detail) that Stalin was hell-bent on erasing Latvia militarily and tried and failed. Moreover, that Roosevelt had long since given the Baltics to Stalin on a platter laughing, as he did so, that he wouldn't go to war over them and Stalin still pursued the Courland pocket with such fanaticism to my mind proves that he understood the value of Courland's symbolism to the Latvians. That it was the Great Patriotic War against the Nazis was of minimal importance where Courland was concerned. —PētersV (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You my friend have been reading too much propaganda. If you just look on the map, you will see the place Courland occupies in the scheme of four strategic operations carried out over that period from Romania to Finland all along the front. Romania. Bulgaria, Hungary, and most Bohemia and Moravia were taken, not to mention Poland, all of Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, Saxony and most of Austria. Finland sued for peace. So you are telling me that in the scheme of these events Courland was somehow the focus of Soviet strategy?! You are deluded.
    • Now, how the hell do you think Germans and Latvians were able to obtain "excruciating detail" on Soviet casualties and losses in equipment if they were retreating all the time?! Troops need time to confirm and assess battle casualties and damage you know. I told you my source. Regardless of what you say, this source (Krivosheyin) has been assessed and analysed, and all in all his figures match those of Germany, Romania, Finland and Italy for the vast majority of operations listed with a +/-5% margin of error. That doesn't seem to tally with the 30,000 he cites for the Courland operation as opposed to your "hundreds of thousands" from an unnamed source. However I know that these ridiculous claims come from places like this http://www.kurland-kessel.de/default.html "the only major army formation not to be defeated (ungeschlagene) before surrender of the Reich." What ridiculous stuff to say! It was a cauldron or pocket or blockade...whatever you want to call it, but that is what it was - a form of strategy intended NOT to reduce the enemy forces through direct combat! I am going to change your unsourced claim in the article, and if it is changed back, I will bring this up in the project talk so you can "distinguish" yourself before the entire community with these claims just like those other Latvians "distinguished themselves in Courland...remember, the
VI. SS-Armee-Korps
Kommand. General SS-Obergruppenführer Krüger
19. lett. SS-Div. SS-Brigadeführer Streckenbach
Quite frankly I am disgusted that you find some sort of perverted pride in the claim that THESE Latvians were some sort of heroes that fought on to the end, and were never "defeated in the field". However I am sure they were buried in that field very quickly. I hope you remember on 16 March that Waffen SS is a criminal organisation...one thing I can assure you, there will never be Latvian Waffen SS again :o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Stalin was intent on wiping out Latvia, the Germans were not the primary target. I guess that is the strongest argument of them all. Yes, Stalin did not care about Germany, he lost his slip over Latvia!!! No rational human being can counter such an obvious statement, excrutiatingly detailed :) Seriously, PētersV, is it absolutely necessary to bring myths and tales into discussion? RJ CG (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
To respond to a couple of your points -
  • Surely if Stalin had been 'intent' on wiping out Latvia via crushing the Courland Kessel, he could have diverted more forces and done it quite easily? The fact remains that in January, massive resources were being diverted to the Vistula-Oder and East Prussian Offensives, and in February and March, to the flank-clearing operations in Pomerania and Silesia. The Courland peninsula was of no strategic significance. In fact, Stalin rather seemed to want a German force kept there. Guderian wanted to move them to the Oder, after all, where they would have presented much more of a threat.
  • If the five periods of fighting were largely due to German attempts to re-establish contact between HG Kurland and Mitte (which still had a presence at Memel), they do not have to represent thwarted Soviet attempts to take the peninsula, just additional defensive or counter-offensive actions.
  • The Latvians in the bridghead, and indeed the Germans, may have put every effort into 'holding on'; but that still doesn't mean the Soviet forces were trying that hard to defeat them.
'Undefeated in the field' gives something of an incorrect impression, here. They didn't capitulate until May, but that's not the same thing. In any case, the units that made up HGK had been fairly comprehensively beaten by Bagramyan's forces in the Memel Offensive Operation and afterwards. I'm just trying to think of this in military planning terms, rather than political ones. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that, using Latvian arguments, Axis were not defeated in the Battle of Stalingrad, as Paulus capitulated and was not defeated on the field? I mean, it is same thing, isn't it? RJ CG (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mrg3105, it is a fact that Latvians hoped that something will happen and they'll be able to restore independent Latvia, but it didn't, most sources, which analyse mood among Latvians at the time will tell you that. Also it has nothing to do with defeat or not, I'm sorry that you fail to see that and keep discussing it (if you do see that, you are deliberately heating up the argument). Technically we could shorten the text to: The army group remained encircled until the end of World War II in Europe and surrendered only when the Nazi government capitulated and ordered all units to surrender., which would roughly mean the same and stop this hair splitting ~~Xil * 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Mrg3105, any comparisons of any situation saying one's just like another is WP:OR. It's quite clear that Stalin did not pursue Courland for its military strategic value, which is a bit different from Stalingrad. I'm not postulating anything else or drawing any other conclusions, whereas you're seeking to discredit my arguments by projecting them on to other situations which they don't apply to, saying my arguments don't hold water in other situations, ergo they don't hold in the original situation. So, you can suggest, but it's not applicable. —PētersV (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible solution[edit]

Why not put that whereas a) Latvian historiography states that HGK was undefeated in a series of Soviet attempts to retake the peninsula, b) Soviet historiography (and most accounts I've seen, to be fair) describe the army group as 'blockaded' and bypassed? Put it as a footnote, if you like. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The previous version read "The army group remained isolated until the end of World War II in Europe and eventually surrendered after the reduction of the Courland cauldron."

I wrote that because the initial pocket was much larger, and was gradually reduced over months as Germany evacuated troops and had to reduce the perimeter due to this factor, as well as topography.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 15:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How about: The army group remained under siege until the end of World War II in Europe and surrendered when the Nazi government capitulated and ordered all units to surrender ? ~~Xil * 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It was technically a blockade and not a siege, and that is what the Soviet historians called it, the Kurland blockade operation. Pocket as it is named now is incorrect because that can only happen as a result of an encirclement, which was of course impossible because it was a peninsula, so for a time Germans were able to conduct evacuation just as the Soviets did from Odessa and Sevastopol, and to a limited degree, Leningrad also, although there because of the city locations, they were formal sieges.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
All right, if we change siege to blockade will that do ? ~~Xil * 15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Done, see the article.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 15:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)