Talk:Battle of Memel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Klaipėda or Memel?[edit]

Per the discussion at Talk:Klaipėda Region#Memelland, this article raises the question of what Memel/Memelland should be called during the period 1939-1944/45. Nazi Germany's expansions/annexations from 1937 on are generally considered to be illegal and were officially reversed in various treaties and conferences towards the end of and after WWII. heqs 18:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best to keep this discussion in one place: See Talk:Klaipėda Region#Memel Territory --PBS 19:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

The heading Aftermath, makes absolutely no sense in the continuum of the article, as its written. It should be renamed or replaced, somewhere before the battle. Dr. Dan 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the first paragraph explains why the second paragraph happened. --PBS 19:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put back Aftermath, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Article structure. At the moment this article is a stub. It needs paragraphs on the Battle and then there will be more on the tactical situation after the battle. Three sentences on the strategic results of he battle are not out of place, it is just that at the moment because it is a stub they have a prominence that they would not have if the article had more text and it was not a stub. --PBS 08:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This political "aftermath" has nothing to do with the Battle for the city, the whole content of this section is misplaced here. --Matthead 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course entitled to you POV, but to the victor the spoils --20:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still unsure that the content of 'Aftermath' is relevant to the battle, but I've kept in in this revision. However, I have reworded it to make it clear that Memel was formally regarded as a part of Lithuania (awarded by the Treaty of Versailles) that Nazi Germany 'took', and was not therefore transferred to the Soviet Union in quite the same manner that Konigsberg / Kaliningard was.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memel Offensive[edit]

Wouldn't Memel Offensive be enough for a name? Memel Offensive Operation sounds to me a bit like a pleonasm.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that the full title is the Memel Offensive Operation in most Soviet sources...but you may want to check withmrg3105 who has all the relevant information on these things.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we need standardized naming; currently we have several "Offensive Operations", but also quite a few of "Offensives" and "Operations" (ex. Lublin-Brest Offensive, Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive, Operation Bagration). This is confusing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though I'd still like to check whether 'offensive operation' or 'operation' is the more accurate translation. Operation Bagration, on the other hand, is slightly different; its formal title was IIRC the 'Belorussian Strategic Offensive Operation', but in the English context it's overwhelmingly known by its codename, Operation Bagration.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other articles are all wrong. Any military action needs to be qualified by the intent behind it, i.e. offensive, defensive, besieging, withdrawal, etc. The Red Army had Offensive and Defensive operations. Simply to say "Offensive" is incorrect since they were operations, i.e. planned use of force and not just something 'offensive'. Where 'Operation' only is used, it is used with the operation codename as pointed out by Esdrasbarnevelt--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please See talk Talk:Prague_Offensive#Prague Strategic Offensive Operation for more on the naming of these operations. I have move the article back to its common English name see WP:NC and more specifically Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Naming conventions. --PBS (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming article[edit]

With respect, I don't think you are justified in moving the article back, for the following reasons:

  • There's no real evidence that "Battle of Memel" is a common phrase in English - Google Books gives only two occurrences, neither of which of have anything to do with the 1944 action. There was a siege, or blockade, of Memel, but it was an outcome of the Memel Offensive Operation. This invalidates the application of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Naming conventions here, I think.
  • The article's narrative, as I expanded it, is largely about the deployment of elements of the 1st Baltic Front, and their advance, during the Memel Offensive Operation - a Soviet military operation of which the city of Memel was one of the objectives. Much of the remainder of the operation took place to the south and east of the town - its scope extended as far southwards as the Neman.

Anyone else have anything to add?Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a counter-argument, both David Glantz (in Soviet Military Deception... and elsewhere) and Grigoriy Krivosheev (in Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century) refer to the offensive as the Memel Offensive Operation.

I'm not sure that many other English-language sources refer to it as anything at all, as it's not been covered in great detail other than to mention that Gollnick's corps was isolated there. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esdrasbarnevelt, I suggest that you join in the conversation at Talk:Prague_Offensive#Prague Strategic Offensive Operation--PBS (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Naming conventions do apply here as it says "If there is no common name [in English], the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "battle of X" or "siege of Y", where X and Y are the locations of the operations" and also "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other)." Both these points apply here. --PBS (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the following does not apply at all:- "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place". You will note that the operational title is Memel Offensive Operation. This tells you plenty about the operation's goal; as for "Battle of Memel"; well, that's OR, I think, as you've failed to prove there is any evidence it's so called in English. The main English source - Glantz - refers to it as the Memel Offensive Operation. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the first clause in the sentence but the second clause "and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other).". --PBS (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remind you the article is about a Soviet offensive and therefore will have a certain focus on their planning; secondly, the German defensive deployments are well-covered within the article. I see no reason to stick to the 'rules' so slavishly if it results in pulling an article title out of thin air. Where is the evidence that this action has ever been referred to as the "Battle of Memel", other than perhaps in the discussions of a few amateur military historians on Web forums? Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the second clause you mention, I suggest that the spirit of this is in any case aimed at usages like Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein. Again, that doesn't apply here. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the unilateral move by Mrg3105. As I wrote in the history of the article. This is under discussion on the talk page there is no consensus for the move so use WP:RM to request the move to draw in a larger group of editors. Geographic battle names do not need a source, but in this case as a compromise I would consider the move to the "Memel Offensive" until such time that a English language source can be produced that describes the action as "Battle of Memel" or "Siege of Memel" --PBS (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming article, part 2[edit]

Seeing as everyone else appears to have settled on the format X Offensive for other similar articles, it seems lgical that this should be renamed "Memel Offensive". Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true see for example Battle of Berlin --PBS (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Memel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Memel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Memel&oldid=1206175810"