Talk:Battle of Kursk/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Military historian opinions

Might we remove this section? We already have a brief analysis of both sectors.

Perhaps we could move it to its own page. Many more opinions are available and worth considering, including the Bundeswehr officers Brand and Kasdorf. The opinions of the participants have not been included in this section either. I find their commentary informed and insightful. If we have an opinion section certainly they should be allowed to comment. Gunbirddriver (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

*Support - moving it per above, or opening opinion section to all relevant opinions, not just historians. Azx2 17:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of term Blitzkrieg

I see no reason why you should feign that this issue has not been discussed as we clearly have previously discussed it. The back and forth that you are now instigating into the article is not a good thing. The section was written, you made a bold edit to that, I reverted it as the edit did not improve the article. This follows the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle pattern of resolution. Clearly you have discovered an interested editor and he does not agree with what you are inserting into the article. At this point the onus is on you to begin a discussion as to why your edit should be retained. You are not supposed to just revert again. This behavior instigates edit warring, which does not resolve conflict. As we had discussed previously here, the term Blitzkrieg does not describe this offensive and was not an operational term used by the German military. In fact, to quote you: "And about "Blitzkrieg", you have to keep in mind that the concepts and tactics that constitute the "Blitzkrieg" are as nebulous as anything could possibly be." I agree. That being the case, it is not helpful to insert the term into this article. I am going to revert your edit back to the way I had it. Please do not revert again before obtaining a consensus opinion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Gunbirddriver, I took the liberty of fixing the red link in the above post. I agree that the Battle of Kursk does not fit the usual definition of Blitzkreig, which I understand to mean quick coordinated assaults that avoided enemy strong points, starting with artillery bombardment and bombing and strafing runs. Next the tanks would attack and finally the infantry would move in. Model's tactic of infantry first and then armour is the opposite of this approach. I have checked two of the three supporting citations added with the edit and neither of them contains the word Blitzkreig. Clark is over at the library; I will bring it home tomorrow. @ EyeTruth, the B-R-D cycle calls for challenged material to not be re-added. Gunbirddriver gave a good reason for the removal in his edit summary when he removed the content, so you should have come to the talk page instead of re-posting the edit. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you mind specifying which sources you checked? Glantz (1986), Glantz (2013) and Clark (2012) all have it. Check those. Model's tactics turned out to be a slug fest but that was not the intention. His tanks were expected to exploit any breakthrough to the fullest and encircle whatever forces they could, but that never happened. And seriously, what did you want me to discuss when I create the topic? To explain how I added a new cited material? It's the person removing a cited material on the grounds of original research that has to explain why they are doing so. Also he said "see talkpage" but there was nothing there. EyeTruth (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. As I see it the maneuver warfare that the German panzertruppen were conducting at the outset of the war was all about concentrating at the point of attack, then moving through to disrupt the enemy lines of communication and supply, with the offense moving faster then the opposition was able to react, creating confusion and doubt in the mind of the opponent commanders. The pyschological pressure exerted upon the defenders was a primary aspect of the model those that understood it were trying to achieve. Guderian, certainly, and Rommel are excellent examples. Manstein, though not trained in the panzer school, rapidly attained mastery of the techniques, which go back to Seeckt. Adolph Hitler, though he approved Manstein's plan for Fall Gelb, never understood nor trusted maneuver warfare. His was the hand that made the decisions on the use of German forces in the summer of 1943. He did not envision nor would he approve a risky, ambitious undertaking based on maneuver warfare, and so it would not be helpful to think of this two week armoured slug fest as Hitler brushing off the blitzkreig methods that he never understood or supported in the first place. People speaking of blitzkreig and Kursk are fitting a template over the battle which the German's never used. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Blitzkrieg is defined by the third parties – reliable historians. Although it is not an official doctrine or concept, yet the term and its definition has come to stay. Even Frieser (2005), after all said and done, also came to the same conclusion: it has come to stay. Hence the task at hand for him was to demystify the idea of all its junky myths. I suggest you give the book a shot if you haven't, although it bored me stiff and I never finished it.
Other historians have claimed that the German plan for Citadel fits the Blitzkrieg definition in many ways. However, from the outset of the offensive, things did not go according to plan, and hence there was no blitzkrieg. Any stuff I added to the article (with citations of the secondary sources) reflected this same opinion shared by reliable historians.
Yes, I cut you a slack back then (and for some reason you didn't even take the offer until a month later). But that was before I realized you had zero regards for accuracy or adherence to sources, and absolutely no squirms throwing in original research. I may be superfluous with my style of writing and wiki-linking but I do not mess around with original research. I've tried reasoning with you before on the issue of inserting your original material into cited passages or deleting cited passages based on your original research but I won't waste it again.
Bring cited material and then we talk. Which secondary source has claimed that the German plan did not reflect the definition of Blitzkrieg? Forget about what actually happened in the offensive because right now we are talking of strictly the plan. In fact, if you wish, bring primary sources that show the Germans planned for the opposite of the Blitzkrieg-definition. Until you do so, I won't waste anymore of my time trying to squeeze water out of a baked stone.EyeTruth (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Gunbirddriver, at least put the year in your citation, or maybe the title. Author's name and page number doesn't cut it, unless you believe you are the only editor that will ever cite Liddell Hart. It is practises like these that led to the many incomplete citations we had not long ago. I don't mind you trying to act defiant and whatnot, but dude, be smart about it. EyeTruth (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You are wrong when you say we have to prove that it was not Blitzkreig or it stays in. You are the one who wants to add the content, so you are the one who has to defend its addition. We can't use the term Blitzkreig to describe the German attack unless at least one of the sources uses the term. I checked the two Glantz sources, and did not find the word "Blitzkreig". I could not check Clark, as it is sitting on my desk at the library. I walked home today and did not feel like carrying it. There's been extensive discussions on this point before: Talk:Battle of Kursk/Archive 1#No Blitzkrieg here; Talk:Battle of Kursk/Archive 2#Blitzkrieg. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Diannaa, this better be a mistake instead of being some twisted attempt to spite me loool... Well, I'm sure it must have been a mistake. You are aware Glantz (1986) is fully available online, right? Go take a look at page 24. Clark (2012) is the one that primarily mentions blitzkrieg and even goes further to lend a very brief description. Glantz, on the other hand, calls the intention of Operation Citadel a blitzkrieg throughout his book. See page 63, 78, 149, 183, 269, 272, 280, and I'm sure there are a lot more (I guess I should have just packed in all the relevant pages in the citation lol). In fact, in almost all of his books, you get "Blitzkrieg" galore. In fact in one of them just after he calls it a "propaganda concept", in the next few pages he goes on to use the term for German operations.
The confusion of Blitzkrieg is how it was never really created and yet exists. The fact that the Wehrmacht never had such a doctrine does not change the fact that the world simply summarized German style of manoeuvre warfare during the war under the term Blitzkrieg. And the fact that an editor (Gunbird) thinks the Blitzkrieg is meant to infer some kind of offensive doctrine is risible. If you can stomach the Western Front, give Frieser (2005) a shot (if you already haven't). It will seriously save us all this unnecessary debate.
Thank you for showing those talkpage sections and I've just read through them. The Archive#1 didn't reach a consensus but instead completely strayed away from the main issue. In Archive#2, an attempt to misuse Frieser (2005) simply didn't work, and the discussion quickly moved on to whether Kursk was the first time the Blitzkrieg was defeated or not. A consensus was reached once the full context given by the respective sources were clarified. And if you check the article history, after those discussions "Blitzkrieg" stayed in the article. It was only removed less than two weeks ago. On what basis? Because Gunbirddriver's original research says so.
I already told Gunbirddriver that trying to disprove Blitzkrieg is currently impossible because there are enough historians that still use the term even though the term has very little military origin. Frieser writes a book named The Blitzkrieg Legend only to end up proving that the so-called Blitzkrieg was just the result of function instead of intention. Not even him with all his great ardour for the subject could force an argument to convince himself that it is now paramount that everyone stopped using the term. For as far as I read, he never arrived at such a conclusion. In fact, he once summarized the exposition of a page by stating that the Blitzkrieg is practically now synonymous to manoeuvre warfare. Diannaa, you're free to join Gunbirddriver in disproving Blitzkrieg. With your access to a lot more secondary sources than I do, I could actually end up learning one or two more things about the Blitzkrieg confusion. EyeTruth (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Include me in the party leery of using the word "blitzkreig" in regard to Kursk. I'm not an expert, and I don't know for a fact that it's not called that by some notable sources, but even if it is, it's contentious and confusing and best avoided. Herostratus (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You seem to miss my point. No where in German planning, discussions or orders for Operation Zitadelle was the term 'blitzkreig" used. No source can be produced documenting German staffers or commanders referring to Zitadelle as a "blitzkreig". In point of fact the idea of mobile warfare was something that Hitler was uncomfortable with. He repeatedly checked the advance of his mobile troops in previous campaigns (Fall Gelb (twice), Barbarossa (many times)) as he was unfamiliar with method and aims of mobile warfare. Halder reported on May 18th, eight days into the invasion of France, Hitler "was raving and bellowing, and alleging that his generals were well on the way to spoiling the whole opertion and even risking the dangers of defeat." (Lewin Rommel as Military Commander p. 17) Three years later and Healy reports that by the summer of 1943 Hitler had become very wary of embracing mobile operations unless success could be guaranteed. Clearly, no one was going to guarantee success for "Zitadelle". Healy reports that in regards to Manstein, "...it had become the norm that whenever Manstein advanced a plan predicated upon mobile warfare, Hitler's immediate response was to quash the proposal with a comment along the lines of 'We'll have no talk of that!'"(Healy Zitadelle p. 38-39) Hitler was the key person in terms of selecting the timing, forces used and objectives in the German offensive at Kursk. At this point in the war he was in far greater control of the Wehrmacht than he had been in 1940. I see no reason for Glantz to refer to the German offensive plans for Kursk as a "blitzkreig" operation, accept for the purpose of effect to underscore the fact that the German's failed to make a breakthrough. The notion that Hitler intended the Kursk offensive to be a "blitzkreig operation" like those run in 1940 is in error. With all due respect to Glantz, a blitzkreig operation was not what Hitler would accept. Regardless, as others have pointed out, it is not for me to prove that Kursk was not planned as a "blitzkreig" operation, but for you to prove that it was.(talk) 04:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"Breakthrough", "speed", "surprise", "deep penetration", "encirclement", etc. These are the things Citadel hoped to achieve. These are the concepts associated with Blitzkrieg. You said you want me to prove that the operation was planned as a "blitzkreig" operation? I already did and I will do it again. Glantz (1986), Clark (2012). Now, how about you prove otherwise. You have categorically failed to do the same. Moreover, for you to actually think Hitler's interference in summer/fall of 1941 is outside the scope of Blitzkrieg is not very good for this discussion. We're going backward instead of forward. See Glantz (2010) (Barbarossa Derailed, Volume 1). Hitler was right on track with the so-called blitzkrieg style throughout 1941. In fact, the general were the ones trying to modify it. Hitler sort to achieve encirclements, whereas the difficulties of such operations after the first month forced the commanders to go for an all-out mobile warfare that sought to maintain maximum momentum and achieve strategic penetrations. Of course, Hitler did not agree with it. It was simply a situation of "we must stick to the first plan no matter what." That was Hitler's kind of mentality. I'm not exactly versed with the Western Front, but is it possible that Hitler was simply sticking to the original plan when he tried to interfere in 1940. I remember reading something like that somewhere. Glantz (2010 V1 and 2011 V2) are his latest work and are based on recently declassified Soviet archival material. It is shown that the blames the German commanders heaped on Hitler regarding the disaster of 1941 is not entirely true. Once again you have misunderstood the Blitzkrieg or more correctly, you have tried to attach a strict definition to it. This is something I've rarely seen any historian do.EyeTruth (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The edits I have done on this article, and they have been considerable in sections written and materials cited, have all been done in good faith. Nevertheless I find myself criticized and belittled on this talk page, and charges leveled that I am doing original research on this page. I have tried to reason with you on this subject and a number of others, but your tone has become increasingly strident and derisive. I do not like being referred to as "dude" and I see no reason for you to behave in the manner that you have. At this point I feel my best course of action is to file a complaint for tendenitious editing. Gunbirddriver
The report is fine with me. But hey, wait a minute.... I meant nothing bad with "dude". Ok, "dude" is a very commonly used term. I truly apologize if you dislike the term "dude". I personally have no problems with it and didn't expect that others will do. I'm really sorry for using "dude" as I wouldn't like another person using words I dislike to refer to me. If there is any other word you prefer me not to use, then by all means inform me. And hey, I recognize that you've done a lot in good faith, but you refuse to discuss about your original research once I ask for a supporting source. All I ask for are supporting sources. And then we can have a balanced discussion rolling. EyeTruth (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Glantz (1986) in our bibliography points to this document, which does not mention Blitzkrieg on page 24, or anywhere in the document. Glantz, 2013, page 183 is the other source I was able to check online, and there's no mention of Blitzkrieg on that page either, and the word is only used once in the book, in footnote 1 to chapter 4, where the book The Failure of Blitzkrieg is mentioned. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Glantz (1986). Page 24 reads:" Objectively, German Operation Citadel was to be the fifth annual demonstration of the power of blitzkrieg." Ok, I followed the link above, and reading it through my browser, I think you might have been looking at the PDF-page number. Follow the page numbers at the bottom of each page. And for the other Glantz, I'm so sorry. It's Glantz (1999) (Battle of Kursk) which I believe is no different from the 2004 reprint (since they share identical ISBN). I had both books open when I was checking things a few days ago and ended up mixing things up. Glantz (1999), pages 63, 78, 149, 183, 269, 272, 280, and I'm sure there are much more. (One of the pages is the title page for the chapter that focuses on how the Soviets managed to unravel the Blitzkrieg). Sorry if that mistake on my part wasted your time, my apologies. EyeTruth (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So here apparently is the edit that you find so offensive: [1]
This is what you had:
It was the most impressive fleet of German armour yet amassed for a single offensive.[1] Even so, Hitler and several senior officers expressed doubts and concern.
which I reduced to:
It was the largest assemblage of German armour yet brought together for a single offensive.[1]
  1. ^ a b Glantz 2013, p. 184.
And this is what you are terming "original research"?! The phrase "most impressive fleet" is exchanged for the phrase "largest assemblage" and it is time to charge another editor with making up content? That is not my understanding of what the admonition against original research is all about, and to use the precept as a hammer against another editor is wrong. As to the point in question, Kursk is routinely thought of as a battle involving large numbers of tanks, but from my perspective as an editor this point is apparent without making the statement at all, and my editorial preference would be to remove it entirely, which I have. All that said, I do not think that gets to the main issue you seem to be having with me as an editor. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Go back and read our discussions again. That was just one among others. I wish you could have asked for the others a few days ago when all this was still fresh in mind. But then as I already said, I believe most of these were done out of good faith, however your response in the earlier discussions seemed to show otherwise. And yes, "largest assemblage" may be wrong. "May be", only because I do not know any secondary source that explicitly refutes it, however, neither do I remember any reliable secondary source that explicitly validates it; certainly not the cited source. The offensive was initially intended to be the strategic offensive of 1943 and in that sense was no different from Barbarossa and Blue. However even the most conservative estimates put Barbarossa at ~3,350 tanks, whereas the generous estimates put Citadel at ~2900 tanks. Frankly, the "impressive" fleet was lifted from the source, just as it is. And removing your edit by yourself was for the best. It's better to provide no information than to provide a distorted one or one unsupported by the cited source. EyeTruth (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
PS. Double-checked: "the most impressive armoured armada..." EyeTruth (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, look, the point is that the two phrases are very similar, so it is odd that you would be having such a problem with it. From your response it appears that what you saw as the problem was that the phrase was not the same as what you had lifted from the source. EyeTruth, editors are not to be lifting phrases from the source. You are supposed to summarize or reword, not copy. If you do copy the exact words, you are expected to use quotation marks to indicate that the writing is not your own. By submitting an edit you agree to release your contribution, but your contribution is not supposed to be "lifted from the source". I believe the same is true with your efforts to insert Glantz's opinion that the operation was a blitzkreig. This phrase you are attached to: "Operation Citadel was to be another demonstration of the blitzkrieg, a demonstration that had occurred annually every spring or summer since the start of World War II, and had reaped immediate victories against all opponents including the Red Army", is that also lifted from the source? If this is not your writing you should not be submitting it to the text.Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice try. Except that if I had put a quote on "impressive fleet", it would be wrong. And no, although the other sentence also borrows its keywords from the source, it wasn't lifted. Critical keywords has to be retained, at least temporarily, or else I will have you contending the validity of every single phrase with your edits, just as you've always done. Nevertheless, that haven't even stopped you from still contending them, often with original research. The only times I go with my own interpretation is when I'm citing multiple sources. But even so, they will still mirror the key message of the sources. And no, the two phrases are not identical. They are absolutely not. Glantz spent two pages listing formations and their armour, which he adds up to ~2400 (ready-to-go) tanks, and then he gave his qualitative verdict. Your phrase gave a purely quantitative summary. Are you seriously not able to see that difference, or are you intentionally feigning ignorance? EyeTruth (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice try nothing. Copying text straight out of a source (or lifting, if you will) is strictly forbidden. It is an actionable offense, as it is a copyright violation.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Except that nothing was copied. Keep bringing them accusations XD. Preserving one or two key terms from a sentence/paragraph is not violating any copyrights. There is no substantial linguistic similarity between the sentences (i.e. no copyright violation) and adequate credit is given (i.e. no plagiarism). But if this is a very big issue for you, then sure, we will find other words that have the same exact meaning as the key terms you have issues with. But "blitzkrieg" cannot be one of them. EyeTruth (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Diannaa. Tell us how the verification of sources went if you've been able to do it. And User:Gunbirddriver, have you been able to find any source that explicitly argues that Citadel was not intended as a Blitzkrieg? Because if the controversy you purported does indeed exist, then we certainly should stay clear of it. So do you have sources to show that it exists? EyeTruth (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No sources are being put forward. And the opposition has failed to successfully vilify the sources presented in support of the notion. The conclusion, therefore, is that no sources could be provided to claim that there is nothing "blitzkrieg" about the intention of Citadel. On the other hand, there are reliable sources that insist Citadel was intended to be a blitzkrieg, at least to a significant extent.

Let us not get all tangled up in the confusion surrounding blitzkrieg. The thing is not a military doctrine, nor is it some kind of official operational art (like deep battle). It's, in a sense, in the same category as stuff like guerrilla warfare, urban warfare, defensive warfare, etc. These are just methods of warfare, and they do not represent a formally organized or a clearly defined military doctrine. It's just a term with only a vague definition for that matter. (For the records, urban warfare also got its own nickname "rattenkrieg" in the Eastern Front but that is totally irrelevant to this discussion).

Blitzkrieg is simply a rectrooactive term WIDELY (and casually) used by military historians and experts (since the 1940s) to describe the Wehrmacht's style of maneuvre warfare that was prominent during the first half of WWII (Check out Frieser (2005)). And this is primarily because the Wehrmacht, unlike the Red Army, did not have any particular grand military doctrine (Glantz 1991 (Dec.), p. "somewhere in the intro."). So the term stuck well. This much, most historians out there agree with. Beyond that, into the technicalities like "blitzkrieg economy", "blitzkrieg in Poland", "blitzkrieg novelty", then the debate becomes thick.

There has been two previous discussions regarding this on this talkpage, and both stemmed from the same confusion surrounding blitzkrieg. A confusion that is now largely non-existent in history circles thanks to Frieser's work (and also Overy's) which has shed a lot of light on the subject. Make no mistake, the technicalities are still fiercely debated.

In Archive#2, an attempt to misuse the title of Frieser (2005) simply didn't work, and the discussion couldn't reach a consensus but instead completely strayed away from the main issue. In Archive#1, an attempt to dispute it again failed and the discussion quickly moved on to whether Kursk was the first time the Blitzkrieg was defeated or not. A consensus was reached for that, once the full context given by the respective sources were clarified. And if you check the article history, after those discussions "Blitzkrieg" stayed in the article. It was only removed less than three weeks ago on absolutely no basis, unless original ideas count. It is time things get restored. If there are still any valid objections, please feel free to raise them. EyeTruth (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hold on there, cowboy. You do not run the show, nor are you in charge to decide when a discussion has concluded and what the outcome is. Other editors have to come to a consensus. The opinion thus far is that it is appropiate to not use the term "Blitzkreig" to describe the offensive. For someone who openly admits to be unfamiliar with the German offensives of 1939 and 1940, you are uniquely unqualified to make the argument for inclusion. If you do not know the background, or understand Hitler's limited appreciation for mobile warfare, or the conflict and mistrust he held for his commanders throughout the war, then you should be mindful of these things and slow to offer your opinion, not attempt to push your opinion through over the objections of three other editors. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
None of you replied for days, and it's not like you weren't active on Wikipedia some of those days. Besides, I made it clear that "if there are still any valid objections, please feel free to raise them." So relax mister.
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS → consensus is not determined by number of editors.
And please, which other editors? Diannaa and Gunbirddriver? OK lol.
Don't forget Wikipedia is not a place to publish original ideas. Editors' personal interpretations, speculations or opinions do not belong here. Bring the sources and we talk. Hitler had a crude understanding of manoeuvre warfare, but that didn't stop German commanders from still using it right up till 1943. In fact, I won't waste it! Bring sources and we talk. I will repeat this question from earlier post: "Gunbirddriver, have you been able to find any source that explicitly argues that Citadel was not INTENDED as a Blitzkrieg?" EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The real discussion

I've had dinner with Glantz, he's said that he's a Soviet specialist, and not particularly well versed on the Germans, so I'd not place a whole lot of weight on his use of the word Blitzkrieg.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Did Glantz say he's "not particularly well versed on the Germans" or is that your own conclusion? That doesn't add up with what he communicates in the preface of his books, especially the newer ones. I wonder how many will buy the story that Glantz is not reliable for anything he says about the Wehrmacht.EyeTruth (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
He admitted it because he didn't read German and generally used English-language sources for his books. 'Course that was 10-12 years ago and his books have gotten better, so I don't know if he's learned it since then or if he's getting more help on the Germans. I know that I sent him some pages from the 10. PzG Division history which were in German more than a few years ago.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I see. I know he's sort of pro-Soviet (if that is the right word), but that doesn't make him a noob in the dealings of the Wehrmacht. Why I have some faith in his view of the Wehrmacht in his older works is because Zetterling edited a good number of them. Yet, I still watch out for conflicting views from other historians who are more acquitted with the Wehrmacht. That is why I'm sincerely seeking to hear the views of other historians on this issue. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
What about Clark? He may not be the biggest name out there, but he's far from the mediocre-class. He's formally educated in the field and officially practising as a big-shot in the field. Also, he's much more versed with the Western Front than the Eastern Front. EyeTruth (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Dunno, does he define the term? It's so widely (mis)used that I'm wary of anybody using it without defining it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Clark (2012, p. 22) states: "The German fighting method became known to the world as Blitzkrieg." He then goes on to explain the German methods, for which he quickly mentioned that their origins dated back to the ideas championed by the 19th century Prussian generals. In the course of the explanation, he underscored manoeuvre warfare and combined arms in panzer divisions. Essentially, in light of the book as a whole, Clark is saying that Blitzkrieg is just an umbrella term the community uses for Wehrmacht's method of maneuver warfare. His view of Blitzkrieg is no different from Frieser's (2005). EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
If so he is wrong. Manstein’s counter-attacks that made up the Third Battle of Kharkov are classic maneuver warfare, which the Panzerwaffen excelled at, but clearly these were not blitzkrieg attacks. Do you need me to point out why they are not referred to as a “blitzkrieg”? Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, Professor Lloyd Clark[1] – Course Director of the University of Buckingham's MA in Modern War Studies, a senior academic in the Department of War Studies and The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, a member of the Royal Historical Society, a member of the British Commission for Military History – is wrong because a wikipedian says so. I don't mind that he's wrong if another historian challenges his assertion. In fact, who knows, you could be a big historian XD, but until you put forward your sources (or your works) then your words don't stand a chance.EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/research/hri/fellows/clark
Yep. It shouldn't be news to you that sources can be in error, particularly when they are discussing a term that is poorly defined, and in fact was never a term that the actual German command or Panzerwaffen used. A source, no matter what university he teaches at, will make errors. The point here is to describe the battle in this article in a manner that is helpful and that will increase the reader's understanding. The term blitzkrieg does not do that, and you don't need to be a Ph.D. of history to figure that out. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Here we go again. Clark is wrong because you think he is, eh? Or because three of your sources were silent on the issue. If those sources disputed Clark's usage of the term in any way, whatsoever, then we would actually have something worth discussing. And yes, the freaking academic degree and professional accolades matter. And his usage of Blitkrieg is not the result of parapraxis. It can't be when a fitting context followed the mention of the term. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the OKH mission statement as given by General Theodore Busse in Newton's book, p. 12: "The objective was to seal off the salient along the lines Belgorod-Kursk-Malo-arkhangel'sk; to establish a new, shorter defensive line; to destroy Red Army forces cut off in the salient; and to engage and defeat the strongest possible Soviet forces from STAVKA's strategic reserves." Don't sound like much of a blitzkrieg, does it? More like a limited offensive, IMO, and not fundamentally different than the offensive to establish a land link with the forces in the Demyansk Pocket in May '42 or the forces surrounding 2nd Shock Army south of Leningrad at the same time. Nothing like Fall Blau, or Typhoon which had very deep objectives.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Clark (2012) also paraphrases the plan stated above (p. 187). So does Zetterling & Frankson (2000, p.4). Glantz (1999 [2004]) also elaborates a plan that essentially summarizes to that stated above (p.51–53). So there is nothing to contend in the objective stated above. In fact it has little to add or remove to this topic. The objective states what the tip of the Citadel plan is and nothing about how it will be executed. And Citadel is different from Demyansk or Leningrad by sheer scale. And it was certainly not a limited offensive when 70% of German armour in the east were thrown into it (Clark 2012, p. 194). It eventually turned out to yield limited gains simply because the Soviets had gotten so much better and bigger than they were two year earlier. Granted, its strategic significance is still debated (but that is retrospectively). And besides, blitzkrieg, as Overy (War and economy in the Third Reich[1]) has argued, has little to do with strategic (and/or economic) level of warfare. EyeTruth (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ I don't have access to the book any more. So I can't specify pages. But the books spends a lot of space discussing the issue, so it can't be missed
Limited offensive has nothing to do with the amount of forces committed, but rather with its objectives. And the objectives for Kursk were very limited; there was nothing about even trying to go deep once they defeated the Soviets in the salient. Overy discusses blitzkrieg in the sense of a short war rather than a long-drawn out war of attrition and is irrelevant here. His whole book is about the Nazi war economy, not battles or the conduct of the war itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The destruction of two Soviet Fronts, and if things go too well three Fronts, is far from "limited". Not even the latter adopted goal of destroying Soviet reserves and armour to incapacitate the Red Army for some months is limited. The goals for Citadel throughout its course had enormous operational significance. I mentioned Overy because I thought you were trying to explain away blitzkrieg from an economic or strategic perspective. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrospectively, Citadel was a limited offensive because even a successful outcome wouldn't have translated to a decisive victory on the Eastern Front. But from a contemporary view, it was the big gun of 1943. It was it or nothing; the last hope of German victory or stalemate in the East.(Clark 2012, p. 184–199)(Zetterling 2000, p. 8-10) Across the cadre of Germans front commanders (Hoth, Manstein, Kempf, Kluge, Model, Haussar, Mellenthin, etc), whether you support the offensive or not, high hopes were pinned on a successful outcome.(Clark 2012, p. 184–199) It's easy to write-off Citadel as nothing from hindsight. Finally, even though it can be argued that Citadel had little strategic significance, that doesn't have anything to do with whether it was intended to feature the Wehrmacht's tried and tested method of manoeuvre warfare (a.k.a, Blitzkrieg). EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The term “maneuver warfare” is not synonymous to the term “blitzkrieg”. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Frieser (2005, p. 7). The Wehrmacht's manoeuvre warfare on the operational level is essentially the best synonym for Blitzkrieg – a term which Frieser admits "its exegesis have been lost in a semantic labyrinth". That synonym for blitzkrieg was Frieser final conclusion for the subchapter titled "Tactical-operational Interpretation", which was under another subchapter titled "Concept of Blitzkrieg". Enough said! Your words or Frieser's? I take Frieser's, any day, any time. EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

And this bit of your argument fails the elementary logic statement that You can't prove a negative: "find any source that explicitly argues that Citadel was not INTENDED as a Blitzkrieg?" so you need to find a different argument.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that is not "proving a negative". You can find sources that argues which German campaign deserves to be called a blitzkrieg or not. And the only way to counter the notion that Citadel was not intended as a blitzkrieg is to show with sources that it was not intended as a blitzkrieg. EyeTruth (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Most sources on the battle don't define blitzkrieg and thus don't say that it wasn't a blitzkrieg. Thus the impossibility of finding somebody who does say that it wasn't. Glantz (1999) doesn't define it, and only says that the Soviets defeated it, which I take to mean the broader, more common meaning than what you want to use here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Clark did. He gave some voice to Blitzkrieg. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously writers describe battles by what they are, rather than what they are not. To assert that evidence against requires an author to describe The Battle of Kursk as “not a Blitzkrieg” is a false criterion. No one states the Battle of Alam el Halfa was not a blitzkrieg, and yet all know that to describe it as a blitzkrieg would be in error. Though Glantz claims it was a blitzkrieg, a number of important authors do not. Erich von Manstein does not refer to Citadelle as a blitzkrieg in his book “Lost Victories”, though he does refer to the Poland campaign as a “lightning” campaign. In “Blood, steel, & myth : the II. SS-Panzer-Korps and the road to Prochorowka, July 1943” George Nipe never makes use of the term blitzkrieg. In 370 pages of text in his work ”Zitadelle”, Mark Healy never uses the term “blitzkrieg” in discussing the battle. So we see a number of significant works covering the battle find no cause to refer to the battle as a blitzkrieg, either in its planning or its execution. Why might that be? Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We need a source because it takes a source to counter another. If we have sources claiming it is, then we need other sources to claim that it wasn't to have the tiniest basis to oppose the former source. If other sources remain silent, then the source that is making the claim is yet to be refuted. PS. In the past, Blitzkrieg has been refuted for certain Wehrmacht campaigns. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
No you don't. Other credible sources have been presented, including one of the main participants in the battle, and they do not refer to the battle as a "blitzkrieg". That is evidence that the battle is not correctly seen as a blitzkrieg operation. Most editors accept that, plus they have an understanding of blitzkrieg warfare, and they do not see Kursk fitting into that picture. As most editors involved want the article to be informative and helpful to the readers understanding, they do not want the term included, as it does not describe the operation in planning or in its execution. That is what is important. Glantz put little effort into his claim that it was. It is easy to see he placed the term in his text as a point of contrast. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Sources still matter more than what we editors think. We have sources saying that the intent of Citadel exemplified the blitzkrieg. No sources brought forward so far have stated or even shown otherwise. You may talk about how several sources were INDIFFERENT to whether Citadel was intended as a blitzkrieg or not, but it won't change the fact that no source has been put forward to counterbalance the blitzkrieg-claim of the other sources. It is that simple. EyeTruth (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
What was the context in which the author stated it was a blitzkrieg? What does he use to back up his claim? Are their orders written he is referring to? Does he define his terms? Was he asserting this from cited facts, based on research, or was he using the term loosely? Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Glantz didn't give much context but he used it frequently. Clark, however, gave sufficient context of his usage of it. EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so you are ready to give up on Glantz as a source for this "blitzkrieg" nonsense? Good, I think that's a step in the right direction. Now, does Clark refer to German orders written calling for a blitzkrieg? Does the manner in which he is using the term match the manner that the term is understood, generally? Would you consider him a greater expert on the German side of the battle then, say, Erich von Manstein? No, huh. Gee, that’s too bad. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Clark was the main source to begin with. Glantz was just there to add flavour. And we both know Manstein never stated Citadel was expected to be a slugfest. It was expected to be a difficult campaign, but the slugfest it turned out to be was not expected. And German orders never carry the term blitzkrieg, as it should be clear to anyone here it was never an official term.
But if you insist on using the logic that indifference to a topic means opposition to it, then I guess based on such a ridiculous logic, Frieser (2005, p. 18-19) also supports that Citadel is a blitzkrieg. He dedicated a whole subchapter to explain why the Polish campaign doesn't count as a Blitzkrieg but was instead the basis of the methods of manoeuvre warfare that would come to be known as Blitzkrieg. Since he didn't bother to do that for Citadel, then Citadel must count as a Blitzkrieg. (Hmmmnn, I like this logic). EyeTruth (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Indifference is not the correct characterization. They’re not characterizing the operation as a blitzkrieg is not the result of indifference. Each of the cited sources were attempting to describe the battle as accurately as they they could, and in that effort none of them characterized the battle as a blitzkrieg. Being well familiar with the term blitzkrieg, one has to assume that their leaving the term out was by intention. To prove otherwise you would have to ask them, which you have not done. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Huh? Your post above makes no sense. I guess it must be a typo. Shouldn't you be the one trying to show that your sources were not just being indifferent? EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Try reading it again, slowly and aloud this time. Maybe close your left eye. Perhaps that’s where the problem is. The argument appears plane enough to me.Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Still makes no sense. If you can show that silence implies opposition, then show it, and let us see. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
As for me, I am not indifferent. Quite the contrary, as the discussion illustrates. I am interested in the text accurately conveying what occurred. In your jocularity it is clear that you are not. You are wedded to the use of the term blitzkrieg to describe a battle that in no way resembles the “blitzkrieg” offensives of 1939, 1940 and 1941. Over that span of time Hitler increased his influence over the Wehrmacht, and the manner in which the military conducted itself changed. By 1943 the Ostheer was not conducting blitzkriegs, and to describe the Kursk offensive as a blitzkrieg utterly mischaracterizes its planning and execution. To that you have no response but to say “Well Glantz referred to it as a blitzkrieg in his 1994 book, so we have to include it in the article that way.” No, my friend, we do not. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Sir, your words versus a historian's = yours doesn't stand a chance. EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
If you insist on using the logic that indifference or silence of a source on a subject means opposition to it, then I guess based on such a warped logic, Frieser (2005, p. 18-19) also supports that Citadel is a blitzkrieg. So there you go. One more source that supports it. On a side note, don't class me as a troll because I'm not uptight like you with my written speech. Don't go saying stuff like: "I am interested in the text accurately conveying what occurred. In your jocularity it is clear that you are not." EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You are as tight as tight comes. As editors, we are not slavishly tied to a phrase uttered by any one, or even two authors. If the operation where widely understood as a blitzkrieg operation the numbers of people writing on the topic and referring to it as a blitzkrieg would be legion. They are not. Many, many authors have written about the battle and did not feel it was rightly characterized as a blitzkrieg. That speaks volumes. Oh, and don’t try to tell me what I should say. I am in control of my own sentences, and I need no advice on where they should go, thank you. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
This statement from your post is a big white lie: "Many, many authors have written about the battle and did not feel it was rightly characterized as a blitzkrieg." This is the very point you've failed to substantiate with source since the start of this unnecessarily long chat. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In "Achteung Panzer", an early work about armoured development and tactics published in 1938, Heinz Gudereian described what he believed was essential for a successful panzer attack. Guderian lists three elements: surprise, deployment in mass, and suitable terrain.(Guderian p. 205) The Germans at Kursk had only one of these three elements. They lacked strategic and tactical surprise, and the terrain did not suit for a mobile battle. The one thing they did have was armour deployed in mass, particularly in the southern attack. The question on terrain comes down to the fact that the Russians had converted the salient into a defensive citadelle. Said Healy: "Hitler’s selection of the code name “Zitadelle” for this last German offensive in the East was to prove remarkably prescient. When finally launched on 5 July both sides had come to view the salient from their own perspectives as exactly that. It was recognized early on in the planning cycles of the respective armies that the forthcoming clash of arms would bear the hallmarks of street fighting and combat in heavily built-up areas. This being in spite of the open and rolling terrain over which it would be fought and the large numbers of mobile formations committed to it. Painful German experience in the preceding two years in Russia had repeatedly demonstrated – to the extent that by 1943 it had become a maxim of the Panzerwaffe – that employment of armour in built-up areas without strong infantry support left tanks highly vulnerable to extremely determined enemy close combat tactics." (Healy p. 123) Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

They had suitable terrain in the southern salient, which was a steppe land with few natural obstacles.(Glantz 1999, p.79-81) (Clark 2012, p. 212) But of course, Soviet defensive effort turned everywhere into a potential killing ground. Naturally, they also intended Citadel to be a surprise and went through great effort to disguise their intentions and mislead the Soviet High Command.(Clark 2012, p. 187)(Glantz 1999, p. 23-26, 51) But they failed. I don't think you want to jump to the conclusion that "the Germans at Kursk had only one of the three elements" outlined by Guderian.EyeTruth (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Read it again. The salient had become a citadelle, and both sides recognized that fact. The defenders had changed the terrain by their defensive works, camouflaged though they were. By July the southern approach to Kursk was not over open terrain. That is why there was no mobile battle fought there. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe we're discussing the intent for Citadel and not what actually happened. Before the defensive work, the site was a good tank country. Even after the defensive work, it was still a suitable tank country once past the three army defensive belts. The final form of Operational Order #6 (OO6) tasked the 4th PA to completely penetrate the army defensive belts by, latest, the fourth day and thus achieve operational freedom in the Soviet rear (Clark 2012, p. 406)(Zamulin 2011, p. 88–90). In fact, II SS PC was tasked with smashing the first belt on the first day of the offensive and reach Prokhorovka by 7 July (Zamulin 2011, p. 89–90). The big operational goal outlined in the original OO6 was to ensnare the defending Soviet Fronts, so rapidly that they would not be able to bring in reinforcements (Glantz 1999, p. 24-25). Even later revision to the plan still hoped to penetrate the Voronehz Front fast enough to engage the Soviet reinforcement from the Steppe Front before they link up with V Front (Zamulin 2011, p. 87–89). That is a clear intention of speed: an intention of manoeuvre warfare on the operational level (also popularly known as blitzkrieg (Frieser 2005, p. 7)). But of course all these expectations were dreams. I really want to hear those sources that say the Germans never planned to employ their style of manoeuvre for Citadel. That is all I've been asking for. EyeTruth (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
What you want to hear is a matter of indifference to me. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
But you see, what I want to hear is what wikipedia also wants to hear. SOURCES, SOURCES, SOURCES. So far, sources disagreeing with Clark and Glantz, explicitly or implicitly, have not even been brought forward. We are just chitchatting for the sake of it, which surprisingly is not as boring as I had imagined. EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
To me, it is deadly boring. Do you really need the response repeated again? So we have a source or two that makes a number of statements referring to the German offensive at Kursk as a blitzkrieg. One source also has said that in regards to the battle, the German side of things was not his primary area, as he did not speak or read German, whereas he did speak and read Russian. We have descriptions of blitzkrieg warfare that clearly do not match Citadelle, either in its planning or its execution. We have multiple authors on the subject, all of whom are well versed in the term “blitzkrieg”, including, George Nipe, Mark Healy and Eric Manstein for heaven’s sake, none of whom refer to the operation as a blitzkrieg operation or as lightning warfare. You characterize this as a position of indifference. You theorize that they wrote entire books on the topic all the while being indifferent to the use of the term “blitzkrieg”. (This is a position that stretches well beyond credibility). Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The fact that Glantz, according to a fellow Wikipedia who claims to know him in person, can't read German does not make him a total noob in the history of the Wehrmacht. It's that simple. But even if we forget Glantz, what about Clark? The dude's specialty is in "operational fighting methods". And this dude is teaching masters-level War Studies in a recognized British University. If all you can do is list three sources that are silent on the issue, then you have absolutely no basis to debate this. OK, since the word "indifference" is so troubling to you, I will use "silence" henceforth. LOL!EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
We also have five editors (myself, Sturmvogel, Diannaa, Herostratus and Binksternet) who do not believe the term is rightly used in the article to describe the operation. And we have you saying that it should. You have not made your case in a manner that has made anyone interested in the article support your position. As it is a work of consensus, you have failed to gain a consensus of editors. In fact, the consensus opinion is opposed to the inclusion of the term to describe the operation. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Do you think there are only five people that think the term has no place in the article. Without a doubt, there are thousands of people who would think that. Likewise, there are thousands who would also think it should stay. This issue has been raised twice in the past, and in both cases there were more editors against its usage than there were in support of it. But the term remained in both cases because points raised by the opposition were mostly based on their own opinions and interpretation. And thus far, this third debate over this issue is no different from the last two. It comes down to what secondary sources think. I already stated this before. If you can support your opinion with secondary sources, then who am I to blindly object against those sources? In the current state of this discussion, we don't even have a legitimate case of a disputed subject. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The intent on the part of the planners at Army Group South and 4th Panzer Army was to break through two layers of defensive works. In the south they were using Tiger’s and Stug IIIs to help fight their way through these defensive works. Fighting through extensive defensive works does not allow for maneuver warfare. The article is written on the basis of what is supportable. The attack against the Kursk salient did not allow for maneuver warfare, and it was a task that the panzer units by design were not intended for. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about regarding manoeuvre warfare. Breakthrough operation is an essential phase of manoeuvre warfare unless the enemy has absolutely no defensive preparations, then there would be no need for any breakthrough. Without a successful breakthrough, there will be no real manoeuvring (at least not on the operational level), which is exactly what happened in Citadel. Zetterling & Frankson (2000, p. 15–16): The preferred German method for conducting breakthrough operations is to let Panzer units create and exploit holes, whereas the Soviet method (I believe Zetterling & Frankson were referring to Deep Battle) is to use a force to initiate a breakthrough with the aid of massed artillery while another force exploits it. The Wehrmacht usually never used the Soviet method unless factors such as terrain necessitated it. The secondary source then goes on to briefly point out the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods (End of cited material). You're aware that there was a breakthrough operation at Sedan 1940, right? EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
No... no... I think it is you who has no clue about what you are talking about. I may be wrong, but you seem pretty confused about a lot of this. What did you say earlier in a moment of truthfulness? "I'm not exactly versed with the Western Front, but is it possible that Hitler was simply sticking to the original plan when he tried to interfere in 1940? I remember reading something like that somewhere." Yeah, something like that. Maneuver warfare is not a synonymous term to “blitzkrieg”, though for convenience sake, you think they should be! The term is not strictly defined. The vagueness of the term adds to the inappropriateness of using it here to describe the Kursk operation. No one speaks of blitzkrieg warfare in 1943. You’re aware of that aren’t you? The battle was fought in the summer of 1943? Kay. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
OMG! You have absolutely no clue were the exegesis of "blitzkrieg" currently lays. I already said it in the very beginning of this long talk that you seriously need to give Frieser (2005) a shot before you continue saying anymore stuff on here; just a quick read will do. The vagueness, the context, the mythology, everything associated with Blitzkrieg will come together in piece and make full sense for once. If that isn't enough, check out Overy (1995) as well. I've repeated points enough times for this one; I WON'T WASTE ANYMORE ON THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THIS DISCUSSION. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
And yes, I'm not versed with the Western Front as much as I am with the Eastern Front. But I'm far from a total noob on it. BTW, if you want to go about proving that the blitzkrieg is nothing but a fantastical fiction in every possible way, then I can assure you can never accomplish that. Somewhere in my heart, I believe there are sources out there that must have disputed the "blitzkriegness" of the Citadel plan, hence it's not stupid to question the assertion. But to go for a complete write-off of blitzkrieg is impossible. Not when Frieser's work is there. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In laying out his treatise on the development German maneuver warfare in his book "The Roots of Blitzkrieg", James Corum states “The tactics of Blitzkrieg warfare in the era between 1939 and 1941 originated in the military doctrine and training of the 1920s.” (Corum p. x) He goes on to say: “The tactics of the 1939 and 1940 campaigns were, for the most part, developed in the early 1920s” (Corum p. xii) The campaign of 1943 is not given even passing mention in reference to his topic.Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. Now think further. Why did he not mention Kursk as an example of a blitzkrieg, or even a failed attempt at a blitzkrieg? What does that say? Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I already answered you. Will copy and paste it here:
We have sources saying that the intent of Citadel exemplified the blitzkrieg. No sources brought forward so far have stated or even shown otherwise. You may talk about how several sources were INDIFFERENT to whether Citadel was intended as a blitzkrieg or not, but it won't change the fact that no source has been put forward to counterbalance the blitzkrieg-claim of the other sources. It is that simple. EyeTruth (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The sources cited were not indifferent. The topic was a matter of great significance to them. They would not mischaracterize the battle they are discussing. All caps does not make for a compelling argument. Citadele did not exemplify a blitzkrieg, and it has been illustrated repeatedly why it did not. You have not successfully illustrated that it was. In fact, the more you describe the battle the more clearly a picture develops that the battle was not "a demonstration of the blitzkrieg." Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I might get tired of reminding you that it was the intention and not the actual event. I might also get tired of telling to bring sources that explicitly support your view. I have reputable sources that support the blitzkrieg-intention. EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
No you’re not. You’re not tired of this at all. Here we are, some 217 kilobytes of discussion, most of which has to do with the question of whether or not the article should include a ‘’single sentence’’ which states the German offensive was a blitzkrieg. Many would think overall that is not an important enough point to justify the degree of effort you are putting into it. You’ve got to make this point. So here we are. You are no nearer to winning your point then you were when you first started. We now have five other editors who have weighed in (myself, Sturmvogel, Diannaa, Herostratus and Binksternet), all of whom believe it should not be included. I suppose you might get tired of trying to win this argument, but I doubt it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course, I'm not tired of this debate, I rather think it's meeh. I'm just tired of having to keep you from going off on a tangent. What I can't, however, comprehend is how you've indulged in this 217 KB of chitchat for the removal of just one word despite admitting that you find the chitchat very boring. And you talk about winning? Winning? Seriously? There is nothing to win in this long convo. This is not supposed to be some kind of contest as you make it out to be. It makes me sad that you're approaching it with such mentality. How are we going to make any progress when you think this is a war? EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The assertion “Glantz calls it a Blitzkrieg, therefore it is” is simply not sufficient. He brings but one perspective, and as we have seen earlier, as a Russian specialist his strength is in Soviet planning, arms and tactics. As to the Germans, he is not quite so good. Healy notes that Glantz and House adopted the Soviet post-war explanations for how the battle in the south evolved. He points out: “Their analysis is grounded on the premise that Hoth did indeed seek to execute his part of the offensive exactly as it had been laid down in Operational Order No. 6. Whilst this supports their thesis as to why the German offensive developed in the way that it did, this is not in fact the strategy Hoth employed.” (Healy p. 94) He goes on to show how Hoth had adjusted the plan of battle to shift the schwerpunkt of 4th Panzer Army away from Oboyan and towards Prokhovoroka instead. He did this to avoid the terrain south of Oboyon, which he rightly believed would favor the defender, particularly as his amoured corps would have had the task of attempting to cross the Psel River while being counterattacked. Thus he planned to shift his direction of thrust northwest, with the plan being to engage the Soviet reserve armour near Prokhovoroka. Once he had defeated the Soviet armour he intended to redirect his force due north toward Kursk. According to German staff officer General Theodur Busse, the destruction of the Soviet armour near Prokhovoroka was considered by Hoth as the “pre-requisite for the overall success of the operation”.Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Clark also disagreed with Glantz on that and essentially narrates the same thing you've written above with the additional info that the new changes to the plan were introduced in late June. (Clark 2012, p. 197, and in many other pages) But Glantz & House never said the II SS Panzer Corps was tasked with taking Oboyan from day 1. In fact, oddly enough, they remained silent on the ultimate goal of the II SS PC (except for supporting XLVIII PC), whereas the goals of the other corps of 4th PA and AD Kempf were mentioned several times. But then in page 140-146 (Glantz 1999), they explain why and how the II SS PC was ordered to divert from supporting the drive to Oboyan and fully focus on Prokhorovka. Although the wording used in p. 146 made it seem like the order was incidental (sloppy job on their part), yet information revealed in the preceding pages gave it a very understandable context. Both Glantz (2012, p. 140-145) and Clark (2012, p. 330-335, 341) made it clear that Oboyan was the focal point (schwerpunkt) of the XLVIII PC, and the II SS PC had orders to support it until new orders came on the afternoon of 9 July. What Glantz failed to mention was that this was anticipated from the very beginning. Point of the matter is that Glantz, by failing to mention that the order to attack Prokhorovka was fully anticipated, essentially implied that it was incidental. However, he never explicitly stated it as such. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
You miss the point. Hoth took the liberty of changing the plan of attack prior to the start of the offensive, that is while the Fourth Panzer Army staff was devising their plans for implementing the directives. Thus the move toward Prokhorovka was by intention from the start, as discussed between Hoth and Manstein. (Healy p. 95) Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
And who said it wasn't by intention? You didn't read the post you replied to. EyeTruth (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You said it wasn’t by intention, in your response above. Let me repeat your response for you:
then in page 140-146 (Glantz 1999), they explain why and how the II SS PC was ordered to divert from supporting the drive to Oboyan and fully focus on Prokhorovka.
The truth is from the time that Hoth began his planning his intention was that the II SS panzer Corps would shift its axis away from Oboyan and toward Prokhorovka. (Healy p.95) Okay? Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Then read again because that is not what my post says. Not even the excerpt you quoted says that. Unless, you're actually telling me you have no deeper understanding of the context of the issue, and therefore have no clue of the bigger context of what I was talking about in my post above? EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean excerpt? Okay, I begin to follow what you are trying to say, and yes, it is exactly what you said in your “post” (comment really). That is why it was quoted and repeated for you. Do you know the meaning of the word “diverted”, because your comment hinges upon that word, and if you don’t have that down then there is no way to even discuss it. This isn’t another version of the “Manstein persuaded Kluge/Kluge refused” controversy, is it? Because that dog won’t hunt. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "excerpt" instead of "except". I'm happy you have things you can use to rip on me, and exploiting it to the fullest. (It saves me a lot of trouble). Now onto the main issue, my post never said what you claimed it said. Try again. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thus it is shown that that blitzkrieg is not a good descriptor of this battle, either in its planning or execution, and that Glantz is not the best source for describing German planning or the interactions of German commanding officers. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That shows nothing about Blitzkrieg. And I'm aware no source is the "best source" for describing anything. After all, Healy (1992, p. 77) claimed that the Germans had 600 tanks (plus another 300 en route) at Prokhorovka. The II SS PC did not even have that many tanks at the start of Citadel (Zetterling 2000, p. 103). It all comes down to matching sources against other sources. No single human nor their supporting editors know it all. Even if they do, they are still not beyond parapraxes or errors of omission. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It shows precisely what I said it shows. The numbers involved are a point of controversy throughout the battle, and it depends on what you are counting, doesn't it? But here you do touch upon the truth: No single human nor their supporting editors know it all. Yep. Good thing to keep in mind. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
No. The German numbers at Prokhorovka are barely a controversy anymore. Wealth of info from German archives have shed so much light on the figures at Prokhorovka. I don't blame Healy for quoting 600 tanks around Prokhorovka in 1992. Many authors have also quoted that same number produced by Soviet estimates and Paul Carell (who was copying from Soviet historians, who were copying from Government-authorized Soviet historians, who were copying from the declassified Soviet General Staff Study). This is why we need to match sources against other sources. And this is why I've been seeking to hear what other sources have to say about this blitzkrieg-issue. EyeTruth (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does. The German numbers at Prokhorovka are neither here nor there. That is not even a point of discussion. No sense in attempting to muddy the issue, as it does not distract anyone paying attention.Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
II SS Panzer Corps reported 294 serviceable tanks and assault guns on the evening of 11 July. III Panzer Corps reported 116 serviceable tanks and assault guns, but excludes one Assault Gun Battalion (figures not found in archives). Secondary Source: Zetterling & Frankson (2000, p. 103). Primary Sources (German archives): (BA-MA RH21-4/118.KTBIa Tagesmeldungen und Nachmeldeungen von II.SS-Pz.Korps zu Pz.A.O.K.), (BA-MA RH 20-8/97. KTB Ia AOK 8 Panzerlage). No matter how you decide to splice Prokhorovka, German armour never exceeded 450 main AFVs on 12 July. 600 tanks for just the II SS PC (or even III PC with it) is always wrong and will always be wrong. So please don't give me that crap talk. EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
And blah blah blah. Add ‘em up all you want. What is the question you are trying to answer? What is the point you are making? Your argument is not supported about you going on about the numbers of German tanks engaged in the fighting at Prokhorovka. It has nothing to do with the question at hand, so keep the crap to yourself. I don’t need to hear the numbers on the colossal amounts you can generate. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm not trying to answer anything. I'm just making sure another pointless point is silenced before it gains an impossible momentum. The claim made by Healy (1992, p. 77) is flat out wrong; you can't contest that one. Now please, let us move on from this side story. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
You have been insisting on inserting a statement into the article which is not supported by the facts. The facts trump sources.Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Fact? Did you just say fact? LOL! Sir, not many things purpotrted as "facts" are "facts" in the full sense of it. Sources still trump your ideas that you think are facts. You should be wary of stating "opinions" as "facts", unless you're using the word loosely. Sources bro, sources. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If I cited Ernie Fudpucker in his Annals of the Second World War saying The Battle of Arras was a blitzkrieg initiated by the British against the 7th Panzer division, what source could you provide that would refute it? A source in and of itself is not a trump card, and we are not required to place everything in the article that your preferred source states in his book. As shown above, some of his assertions are made for dramatic narrative, and sadly are not supported by the evidence, namely the assertion that Manstein was passive before the Fuhrer, who had him mesmerized. We have it from report of another editor that in conversion with Glantz he stated he was "not particularly well versed on the Germans." That does not mean the source Glantz and House is of no merit, but it does mean that we should not be wedded to everything the source asserts.Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually I can counter the Battle of Arras claim easily with a bit of digging, if it were the main issues being discussed here. Frieser touched upon it and generally trashed the British attempt as sloppy and the opposite of how Guderian would have handled such a battle (Frieser 2005, p. 280s). But besides using sources to counter it, it can also be shown how anatopistic it is to seriously use blitzkrieg to describe the British action at Arras. Also if by any chance, the work you mentioned is encyclopedic (its title is suggestive of that), then secondary sources trumps it as per WP:WPNOTRS guideline. EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Show me the sources! Give me the sources, anyone, who has said that the Battle of Arras was not a British version of a blitzkrieg! Ernie Fudpucker far exceeds your mere opinion.Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If this was Talk:Battle of Arras, I would happily indulge, since I have some idea where to start looking for. But I wouldn't waste my time on a topic completely irrelevant to Citadel in this talkpage. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
PS. BTW, never heard of Ernie Fudpucker and there is nothing in Google relevant to that name. :S.EyeTruth (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep looking for him, and his seminal work, and then report back to the rest of us here.Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Why would I bother looking past the first page of Google. It is the fiercely respected First Page of Google, for heaven's sake. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Add me to the list of editors who think "Blitzkrieg" should not be brought up in regard to Kursk. There was no intention of bypassing hardened defensive formations. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there were intentions and attempts to bypass tough points when possible. Operation Roland (14–17 July) is an example that nearly succeeded in encircling the whole 69th Army. Generally, the Germans during Citadel were lacking in infantry and reserve formations, without which any bypassing is doomed to boomerang. Therefore, bypassing wasn't a favoured option. Also, keep in mind that the subunits of the 4th Panzer Army directed their attacks mostly along the main roads in the sector and bypassed everything else. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
He is saying that the Germans knew from the start that they were going to have to fight their way through a series of defenses. He does not mean on a tactical level. And he is right.Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course they knew from the start that they were going to have to fight their way through a series of defenses. Who said they didn't know? EyeTruth (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You did. You placed into the article the statement that the German command intended the operation to be a “demonstration of the blitzkrieg”. Did the German command plan a blitzkrieg through the Maginot line? Where did Manstein's plan place the bulk of their armour in 1940, and why? Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Show me where I said the Germans didn't know they would be breaking through a series of defences EyeTruth (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Show me a campaign frequently referred to as a blitzkrieg where the attacking force was purposely sent to fight through 50 kilometers of defenses, thousand upon thousands of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, 31,000 anti-tank guns, mortars and artillery pieces, and the multiple trenches and tank ditches. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
So after all, I never said it, eh? Nice try with your false accusation. EyeTruth (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Which Frieser book are you referencing? The bibliography only lists the relevant volume of the German (semi-)official history, but that's from 2007. Since the 2005 book seems to be the main source that you're referencing that actually defines blitzkrieg, I'm gonna need a much fuller excerpt than what you've provided, because it seems that every attack that the Germans made would be a blitzkrieg by Frieser's definition.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Frieser (2005) is the one titled The Blitzkrieg Legend. I would have just uploaded a pic since it's just two or three pages, but I can't due to technical issues. I was joking when I told you that your 9k response is coming, and I never imagined that incidentally it will turn out to be the case. Well, here is your 9k response. EyeTruth (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

EyeTruth (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have the book, I thought that you were referring to another book by Friesen that I thought was in German; but thanks for typing that out. The key concept that you seem to miss here is "by means for far-reaching thrusts", which is not part of the German operational concept for this battle. IMO, the tactical-operational concept for this battle is much closer to Operation Fredericus and the other operations aimed at crushing Soviet forces that could interfere with Fall Blau, which was a true blitzkrieg in every sense.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Or did I miss something where Clark actually defined it in a comprehensive manner? I will note that Healey's 2008 book doesn't mention blitzkrieg in the chapters covering the plans for Zitadelle, a marked contrast to his 1992 Osprey book. I will also note that the reports of Busse, Raus, Fangohr, and von der Groeben, either commanders or operations officers of the involved armies, do not use the word blitzkrieg.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, you won't hear any of those officers using the term. I'm sure I've reiterated that point more than seven times in this discussion. The term was frowned upon in German military circles after 1941. That doesn't change the fact that it is a term that describes a real military concept. Even though there was no formal doctrine, yet there were classic patterns in German offensive methods. I thought I posted about Clark's definition somewhere above. If you need fuller context, then you have to wait until I get technical issues sorted out. I typed out Frieser's because I won't have access to it in the near future.

And Zitadelle had limited objectives, even if they did encompass the destruction of two fronts, unlike Blau, Typhoon, Barbarossa, Gelb, Weiss, Marita, etc., and was a limited offensive. The fact that it was the only offensive play available to the Germans in '43 is irrelevant. I've seen a couple of statements by various authors that the Germans knew that they were attacking Soviet defenses, but failed to understand just how deep those really were.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've stated it several times already with sources: Blitzkrieg has little strategic significance. Or to word better, it has no strategic dimension to it. So your suggestion that Citadel had limited objectives (i.e. little strategic significance) is completely irrelevant. Overy and Frieser dealt with those issues very thoroughly. EyeTruth (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Action from this discussion

I have removed all trace of "blitzkrieg" from the article because of this discussion. The word is used by too few observers of this battle, and the concept is too unclear to help our readers. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A classic example of WP:TE. Repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors on the basis that other editors don't like it. EyeTruth (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Classic example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in your failure to acknowledge that the bulk of sources do not characterize the battle as a blitzkrieg.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
And no one is characterizing the battle as blitzkrieg; not even the sources I cited. What the sources I cited characterize as blitzkrieg is the intention. I've had to remind you guys of this more than seven times, but of course, you all always conveniently go amnesia on it. And you keep saying "bulk of sources"? What bulk of sources have anyone presented to give active voice for the exclusion of "blitzkrieg" since 2009 that this issue has been under dispute? Not even a single source. Not even just one. My edits certifies WP:YESPOV. Until proven otherwise with sources, the exclusion of "blitzkrieg" is nothing but an intelligent idea conceived by a number of editors. Binksternet's recent edit constitutes as WP:DE and even goes against a WP:WEIGHT policy: repeated deletion of content (supported by reliable sources) based on his/her rationale not attested by any source presented so far. Even fifty editors with their original opinions cannot overrule the WP:NPOV policy, which dictates that "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" are eligible for inclusion. Here we have a view supported by more than one very reliable secondary source (listed so far), and a shitload of tertiary sources (e.g. documentaries (I can't recall any particular one, but without a doubt, there are plenty of them)). There are no secondary sources (listed so far) that oppose this view. Not even one. Yet some 10+ editors, since 2009, have embarked on a crusade to exclude it from the article. EyeTruth (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
We take the lack of characterization by multiple sources of the battle as a blitzkrieg in any way, shape, or form, as a confirmation that it was not any such thing. You do not accept this interpretation as valid. Fair enough, but that doesn't justify accusations of NPOV, etc. for what is a fairly minor point. WP:DEADHORSE I'd much prefer that you let this go and start cleaning up the article so we can split out the southern attack sometime soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Well that is not true, Sturmvogel 66. Even other sources characterize the Citadel Plan with terms that are associated with blitzkrieg; even some of the sources you guys presented – I'm very sure for Healey 1992, which also, contrary to your claim, doesn't have the term "blitzkrieg" explicitly in it. (On a side note, contrary to your claim, "blitzkrieg" appears several times in Healey (2008)). I have reverted Binksternet's edit on the grounds of the policy and guideline violations stated in the post above. I suggest you guys let this go and allow this thing that has always been there have some peace. If you guys continue violating explicit Wikipedia policies and guidelines by removing cited material (from reliable sources) on the sole basis of "other sources didn't use the term blitzkrieg", then we will have to take this to a noticeboard. EyeTruth (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I've undone your undo as claims of NPOV, etc. are clearly BS. If anything, you're pushing a certain POV, admittedly backed by Clark (Glantz cites are too generic to support your claim.); all we're doing is saying that there's no need to characterize the battle at all, which is not pushing a POV at all in logical terms. As for the other stuff, I was relying on somebody else's mention of Healey's use of blitzkrieg in his '92 book. It's certainly not used in the planning section which I just read through, so point to you. Conversely, it's also not mentioned in the planning section of his '08 book. Page cites, please, for any other uses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
By crusading to remove all instances of blitzkrieg, and this goes back to 2009, you're pushing for a very bold POV. And I suggest you read my previous post more carefully. I never said it was used in Healy (1992); instead, you were wrong when you claimed it never appeared in 2008, which it does in pages 135 and 136. EyeTruth (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
My first edit to the article wasn't until 2010, so you'd best be very careful about imputing to me actions that I did not make. And the Healey mentions of blitzkrieg refer to short campaigns, nothing relevant to this discussion. I suppose that you score another point by finding the term in the book when I didn't, but really, it doesn't count if it's not pertinent to the matter at hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

DRN follow up

The DRN report

Well, it is now clear that the editor-consensus claimed and enforced by Sturmvogel66 and Gunbirddriver was bogus. At least 4 editors have shown their support for the characterization of the intended plan for Citadel as a blitzkrieg. But it is not like that matters as much as what secondary sources say anyways. And there is overwhelming support from secondary sources. Perhaps we can reach a compromise by skillfully editing this thing – mention it in a different section or reword it in a more acceptable form or anything else that can serve as a middle ground. Yes? No? BTW Gunbirddriver, your blatant reversion is not going to help you. EyeTruth (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, no such thing is clear. Five editors have shown their support for excluding the term, so you have no majority view. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Gunbirddriver, Sturmvogel 66, Hasteur. Who else? is it Dianna? (She set a challenge for me, I met it and ever since, her comeback is pending). But as other editors noted on the DRN, the points being raised and their sources matter as much as the votes. As of now, in terms of explicit support versus explicit opposition from sources, it is 7+ versus 0. If you want, you can take this to RFC. EyeTruth (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah you are a big one for administrative actions. The DRN closed with the question unresolved. You failed to make a compelling case for your position. By my count maybe one editor over there agreed with you, but most recognized that the term was problematic and was of dubious value in the article. So, we still have five editors that have shown up on this article's talk page and expressed the opinion that the term should not be included, and three of them have offered convincing arguments why not. Only one editor here believes it should be included, and his argument is weak, as shown below. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
That is one bold lie. In the DRN case, four editors thought it was okay to have blitzkrieg included, and three were against it. For that the case ended up unresolved. The four editors are: Binksternet, Magus732, Someone not using his real name, EyeTruth. You are good with fabricating and twisting information, and they seem to work very well for you. I may reply to the rest of your essay when I get the chance. EyeTruth (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
IF it had closed the way you claim, four editors supporting inclusion, THEN how is it that the DRN closed as unresolved? Binksternet is not in favor of inclusion of the term on the Battle of Kursk page. He argued against inclusion, so take him off your list. The administrator there advised taking the issue back to the article's talk page. A compelling argument has been made here for exclusion. Here on the article's talk page six editors have indicated they are opposed to inclusion (Sturmvogel 66, Diannaa, Herostratus, Binksternet, Azx2 and myself). There is no consensus opinion for inclusion. After some 200 kilobytes of argument, one editor is for inclusion. I doubt any further reply on your part would win over anyone to your point of view. The argument is just burning up time and obstructing the effort to improve the article. Just the same you are certainly free to take the course of action you think is best. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
It closed as unresolved because, as stated and agreed upon by two DRN-volunteers, a simple majority alone would not be enough to resolve the dispute. You chose not to participate in the resolution of the content dispute. If you had, I wouldn't need to be typing all this. Binksternet explicitly supported the the inclusion of "a failed blitzkrieg" and even brought forward sources to support it. He was initially against my position because he misunderstood it. Perhaps, he thought I was saying that Citadel was a classic example of blitzkrieg. Binksternet later explained his position as follows: "I think the German intention to engage in lightning battle (blitzkrieg) should be briefly described as wishful thinking. The actual battle should be described as a deadly slugfest, whatever is the opposite of blitzkrieg, because of the expert Soviet defense-in-depth. Near the end of the article we can say that Kursk was the death of the blitzkrieg concept." Did you think Sturmvogel 66 was crazy when he said: "While I don't agree that it was a blitzkrieg in any way, the consensus, such as it was with the editors who did comment [in the DRN case], would seem to be to call it a failed blitzkrieg." EyeTruth (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry to have to correct you, but I did participate at the outset, but after ten days or so it did not appear to be going anywhere. I believe you did not even initiate the DRN until after an administrator had warned you not to continue to insert the term into the article. That kind of goes around the purpose, doesn't it? Afterall, it is meant as a means to resolve disputes, not a means by which an editor can push a position when all other avenues have been blocked to them. Anyway, you were told that the term is not to be inserted into the article until you gained a consensus in favor of that change. You failed to do so. As you mention, Sturmvogel 66 repeated that he did not agree with the use of the term in the article. Binkersternet said "the concept is too muddled and debated to be applied specifically to Kursk." Hasteur said "it would be best to leave the term Blitzkrieg out of the Battle of Kursk article." Your stongest support came from Someone not using his real name, who said "I think this is a classic example of commentary that needs attribution", which is to say that the meaning of the term and it's appropriateness to this article are not clear. He then quoted a number of sources, but did not appear to be well versed in the topic and was just citing what he was able to find. As we see from the discussion below, that does not really get to the heart of the matter. He went on to point out "Finally, there are some books which do point out that the German plan was in certain ways different from a blitzkrieg." Yes, indeed. He was correct on that point. Anyway, the bottom line is a number of editors have stated their opposition here on the article's talk page (six, to be precise), a sound argument for exclusion has been advanced with no response from the one proponent for inclusion, and there is no enthusiasm for inserting the term into the article. Unless there is a significant change in opinion, no consensus exists to support a change. The article stays as is, without the term inserted into the text. Okay, I think that gets you back up to speed.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Why do you have to lie? The DRN case was nearly a day old when an administrator gave out any warning. A warning that was a result of another of your lie. You presented the WP:ANI report as if I was still making changes to the article. A misrepresentation I pointed out too late. You did participate in the DRN case but you openly refused to see it a content dispute. And now you are cherry picking Binkersternet's statement. This is his full statement: "the concept is too muddled and debated to be applied specifically to Kursk as a "classic blitzkrieg" in the manner preferred by EyeTruth. Instead, most of those historians who describe Kursk as some form of blitzkrieg say that it was a failed blitzkrieg, not a classic example." Binkersternet was initially against my position because he misunderstood me. Perhaps, he thought I was saying that Citadel was a classic example of blitzkrieg, which is not what I was saying. Binksternet later explained his position and it was in support of including the term. EyeTruth (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
You were blocked. For 48 hours. That does not happen willy nilly. Try to figure out why that happened instead of claiming everyone around you is lying and acting unfairly. Do you think I am not interested in the content of the article? Is it possible you do not understand that the content of the article is important to me? I am here to tell you that I view your attempt to insert the phrase "blitzkrieg" into the article as an effort to change content, and I am opposed to that content change. Binksternet has no enthusiasm for inserting the term into the article. If he wants to argue for that change he is free to do so, but he has not. People like Binkersternet and Sturmvogel 66 are broadly read and what they say reflects that broad reading. Their opinion should not be dismissed on the basis that it is just their opinion. Their opinion is not tied to a quote from a single author. You are mistaking concession, the attempt to resolve and minimize conflict, for agreement. If Binkersternet feels he needs to argue for inclusion and wants to advance that here then he is free to do so. I don't see that happening. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I never claimed everyone around is lying. It is just you. Once again you are fabricating and twisting information; it scares me how very adept you are with doing this stuff. Binkersternet has made his statement in the DRN case as follows: "I think the German intention to engage in lightning battle (blitzkrieg) should be briefly described as wishful thinking. The actual battle should be described as a deadly slugfest, whatever is the opposite of blitzkrieg, because of the expert Soviet defense-in-depth. Near the end of the article we can say that Kursk was the death of the blitzkrieg concept." It is his choice to repeat it here again if he wishes. EyeTruth (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
He hasn't. Your mistake is as I described it above. If I were to operate in the same manner, I would eliminate you as being for inclusion, quoting you thus: "I won't object to removing "Blitzkrieg" altogether, except that I wonder how difficult it would be to substitute the term without diverting the meaning of the passages from those of the various sources." Well, we are not wedded to quoting the various passages nor to the sources that mentioned the term in their descriptions, so it turns out it wasn't that difficult. The description of the battle is perfectly well understood in this article without using the term "blitzkrieg". The discussion stands as six to one against. You should consider moving on.Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
While I don't agree that it was a blitzkrieg in any way, the consensus, such as it was with the editors who did comment, would seem to be to call it a failed blitzkrieg. But I'd suggest adding in a note that many historians do not agree with that assessment and fail to characterize it as such. Eyetruth, using such language as "bogus" regarding the consensus as shown on this talk page earlier is just adding fuel to the flames. The consensus here is still just as valid as it ever was; several editors who commented here did not do so on the DRN, possibly because they didn't want the extra drama. Tone your language down or you're going to continue wasting much time on edit wars, etc. with people you've pissed off.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Where is the DRN discussion? I recall participating in it for a time, but now can only find an outline at the link. At the time I left the consensus was that the term "blitzkrieg" should not be used in the article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, a "failed blitzkrieg" is similar to what I've been saying all along and that is what the many sources presented here and on the DRN are all saying. (Frankly, I don't even think Citadel is even a "failed blitzkrieg". In practice it was not even a blitzkrieg at all). I think noting that some other historians disagree with such a characterization is not a bad idea, although I wonder how that would be cited given that throughout the past discussions on here and on the DRN there are still no secondary sources cited for that bit. But I'm guessing you already have sources in mind. And thanx for the advice... will work on my lang and be more cautious when I express my thoughts. EyeTruth (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
BTW, Dianna is the only editor on here that missed out on the DRN and frankly she quit this drama a while ago. She had insisted that I should present the sources that supported the inclusion. She stated: "We can't use the term Blitzkreig to describe the German attack unless at least one of the sources uses the term." Well, I provided the sources and challenged her to respond. Our discussion ended there. I don't think there is any other editor that didn't chip in on the DRN (or did I miss someone?) EyeTruth (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine. That would indicate that she did not find your argument compelling, or perhaps she tired of the back and forth, maybe she did not like your tone, but she never returned to say that she had changed her position. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem with calling the Citadel offensive as a "blitzkrieg" is that the term is vaguely understood, has conflicting meanings attached to it, and was never used by the German military as a means to describe what they were intending to do. I can see using it to describe many of their offensive operations from 1939 through 1942, but things had changed by 1943 and the term is ill used here. In particular reference to Citadele, the element of surprise is totally lacking. That may be the most telling aspect that rules out Citadele as a "blitzkrieg". The Russians knew the Germans were coming, and the Germans knew the Russians knew they were coming. That being so the operation was unlikely to place psychological pressure on the defenders and more importantly in the mind of the Soviet commanders. Of course, as pointed out previously no source is going to describe Citadele as what it was not, so the demand that such example be presented as proof is a strawman argument. Multiple sources can be provided that define what was the essence of "blitzkrieg warfare", and the difference between these descriptions and Citadele in both its planning and execution make the case. Meanwhile, the insertion of the phrase back into the article is inappropriate and should be reverted until a consensus can be reached. The model is Bold Edit, Revert, Discuss. All we have here is bold edit (against prior consensus opinion), followed by revert, followed by further reversions, and this leads to edit warring. That is why they suggest you follow the guide. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Several sources characterize German intentions at Kursk as Blitzkrieg. Also, it is not a strawman argument to ask for any sources that claim Citadel was not a blitzkrieg. You will find lots of sources that contend the 'blitzkriegness' of campaigns like the invasion of Poland. You also say that there are lots of differences between the popular descriptions of the Blitzkrieg and the planning and execution of Citadel; but that is your own interpretation, unless you have sources that explicitly support it. The points you raise to support these interpretations are debatable and far from being self-evident. I will show you below. EyeTruth (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
You say "the Russians knew the Germans were coming, and the Germans knew the Russians knew they were coming" and you also agree that 1942 was a typical blitzkrieg (am I right?). Well, the Soviets knew the Germans were coming in the summer of 1942 and yet you agree it is still a blitzkrieg. The Soviets didn't know precisely where the weight of the German attack would fall on in 1942. In 1943, even though the Russians knew Kursk was the goal, they still didn't know precisely where the weight of the German attack would fall on, whether in the northern, southern or adjacent sides (both Glantz, Zetterling & Anderson mentioned it). Although the Germans lost most of their element of surprise, they still kept the Soviets on their toes. Furthermore, the Germans intended Citadel to be a surprise for the Soviets (Barbier, Healy 1992, Clark, Glantz, Zetterling, Anderson, House, etc, all agree on this one). But unfortunately the Soviets ended up knowing more than they should. And of course, as the Germans saw the Soviet preparations, they knew their secret was out. What matters is that it was intended to be a surprise. Intention is the key concept in this whole dispute. Intention. EyeTruth (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
You also say blitzkrieg "was never used by the German military as a means to describe what they were intending to do." Please tell me how many terms in this article were used by the German military? BTW, while the term "blitzkrieg" was never officially adopted, it was popularly used in the German military between 1939 to late 1941 (read Frieser 2005). And you also say the term "has conflicting meanings attached to it". Well, those conflicting meanings are what historians like Frieser and Overy have worked hard to fix. Check out Overy's War and economy in the Third Reich and The Blitzkrieg Legend. They thoroughly trashed most of the popular legends and mythology attached to the Blitzkrieg. You have to come to terms with the fact that there was a pattern of warfare intentionally employed by the Wehrmacht after the fall of France in 1940. That is what many call "blitzkrieg". It was not given an official name but it actually existed. EyeTruth (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is von Mellenthin on Blitzkrieg warfare:

  • "The German victories of 1940 were due primarily to the skillful application of two principles of war: surprise and concentration." (von Mellenthin, Panzer Battles p. 12)
  • "It was vital to take advantage of the enemies confusion and give him no opportunity to regain his balance." (von Mellenthin, p. 13)
  • "The skillful use of surprise was very important. (von Mellenthin, p. 24)
  • "It achieved mobility by the combination of firepower, concentration and surprise, together with the latest modern arms: airpower, parachute and armour." (von Mellenthin, p. 25)

Shimon Nivah on Blitzkrieg: “Blitzkrieg is commonly defined as a hyper-violent pattern, designed to defeat the opposition by means of surprise, speed and superiority of material and fire.” (Niveh p. 106)

German general officers on the Battle of Kursk: (All of the following reports can be found in their entirety in “Kursk, The German View” by Steven Newton 2002)

US Study of Operation Citadel, written by German officers following the war: all of these officers were familiar with the term “Blitzkrieg”, and could have used it to describe the offensive if they so chose.

Theodor Busse (Manstein’s Chief of Staff) in “Operation Citadel Overview”  : OKH determined that the Soviets were ready for action, that they expected a German attack aimed at cutting off the Kursk salient, that they planned to wait for this attack to be launched, that they wanted to hold the Kursk salient under all circumstances, that once the Soviets contained the German attack they would make offensive operations against the Donets Basin. No mention of the term “Blitzkrieg”

Erhaud Raus , (Commander of XI Corps) in “Ameebteilung Kempf” : mentions explicitly that the German command was aware that the Russians were expecting their attack and had prepared defenses in depth; no mention of the term “Blitzkrieg”

Friedrich Fangohr, (Chief of Staff, 4th Panzer Army) “Fourth Panzer Army” : The repeated postponement of the attack, and the lengthy period during which we held the assault divisions in readiness directly behind the front, combined to deprive us of the element of tactical surprise. No mention of the term “Blitzkrieg”

Further, Erich von Manstein in his “Lost Victories” describes the battle, but makes no mention of the term Blitzkrieg, though he does use this term to describe earlier campaigns.

Thus a host of German officers well familiar with the campaign and familiar with the term Blitzkrieg do not use that term to describe their offensive operations at Kursk.

Erwin Rommel on Blitzkrieg warfare: Commenting on a failed early attack by his 5th Light Division, Rommel wrote: "The division's command had not mastered the art of concentrating its strength at one point, forcing a breakthrough, rolling up and securing the flanks on either side, and then penetrating like lighting, before the enemy has time to react, deep into his rear." Said B. H. Liddell Hart, the Blitzkrieg method could not be better epitomized in a single sentence.

Guderian on Blitzkrieg: In "Achteung Panzer", an early work about armoured development and tactics published in 1938, Heinz Gudereian described what he believed was essential for a successful panzer attack. Guderian lists three elements: surprise, deployment in mass, and suitable terrain.(Guderian p. 205) The Germans at Kursk had only one of these three elements. They lacked strategic and tactical surprise, and the terrain did not suit for a mobile battle.

In planning the invasion of France, the remarks made by Guderian at the February 20th, 1940 meeting make clear that the initial logic that guided the plan of the operation was not that of encirclement. (Nevah p. 126) Offensives designed with concentric attacks (such as at Kursk) did not follow Guderian’s conception of maneuver warfare.

von Mellenthin on what is not Blitzkrieg warfare:

  • "It is useless to throw armour against well prepared defensive positions, manned by an enemy who expects an attack and is determined to repulse it." p. 20-21
  • "The war dragged on into 1942, but the time for blitzkrieg tactics had passed." p. 358
Not a single one of these undermine the blitzkrieg characterization asserted by several historians. Not a single one of the things you listed even opposed a blitzkrieg characterization. Currently, we have more than 9 different historians (See the DRN) explicitly asserting a blitzkrieg characterization to Citadel – at least the plan. In the DRN, you categorically wrote off the dispute as a pure editor-dispute and contributed nothing to the discussion over the content-dispute. That is your own problem. EyeTruth (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
They all do. If you cannot see it than you do not understand Blitzkrieg warfare, which, quite frankly, has been apparent from the start. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Many sources, including the primary sources, do not describe Citadele as a "Blitzkrieg".Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Many sources also describe the intention as a blitzkrieg. EyeTruth (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
No primary sources do. The question is "Is the term helpful in understanding the operation." It is not. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
As pointed out previously, it is a strawman argument to contend that only a source explicitly describing Citadele as not a blitzkrieg is necessary to make the case. It is not reasonable to expect a source to be available describing the operation by what it was not. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It is reasonable to expect a source to be available describing what the operation is not if a popular controversy indeed exists regarding the subject. Zetterling and Frankson did just that for the operation in Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis. You are the one making a strawman argument. Go check out the DRN... duuh! EyeTruth (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
No it is not reasonable to expect that. It is not a popular controversy. For most writers on the subject, it is a matter of indifference. That is why they do not mention it. If the term was important in describig the operation, they would have included it. It is you that is placing undue weight on the term. They have not.Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
As you say, "it is a matter of indifference". And "most" writers on the subject characterized it as blitzkrieg (just pulling out "most" from thin air the way you do it). EyeTruth (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but I would say some writers, certainly not most, and those that do are likely doing so for dramatic effect to underscore the failure of the Germans to succeed in a penetration, and not for the purpose of describing the German plan of attack, as the plan of attack was clearly not a plan that Guderian or anyone of the tank experts, or successful armoured commanders, such as a Rommel or a Balck, would be in favor of. Okay then, exactly why do you believe it is important to include the term Blitzkrieg into a discussion of the Battle of Kursk? Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The implication that Dianna did not respond further to you because she had no response is false. You have no idea why she did not respond. It is very possible that she did not care to respond, that she found it tiresome and wasteful of her time. Not everyone wants to argue endlessly wth someone who candidly concedes that his tone is offensive. Maybe it just wasn't worth it to her? Anyway, her opinion as recorded is that she opposed the idea of including the term in the article, and until she states the opposite that continues as her stated opinion.Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
LOL. I'm not sure where you got the above implication from. Bro, seriously... read! EyeTruth (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Laugh all you like, EyeTruth, but cover your mouth. It's disgusting when your food is flying out. Now here is what she said:"I agree that the Battle of Kursk does not it the usual definition of Blitzkreig, which I understand to mean quick coordinated assaults that avoided enemy strong points, starting with artillery bombardment and bombing and strafing runs. Next the tanks would attack and finally the infantry would move in. Model's tactic of infantry first and then armour is the opposite of this approach." She is a librarian monitoring this page, and despite all your back and forth, she has not reversed her position statement. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
One big joke here. Who said Dianna has reversed her position statement? Who said she didn't respond because she had no response? Certainly not me. LOOOL. Seriously... read. EyeTruth (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is quite a laugher. Okay, so you agree that she is another editor that does not believe that the term Blitzkrieg should be included in the aritcle. Okay, just as long as you are clear that that is her position and that nothing you have offered has brought her to a point where she would be compelled to change her position. Good. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
As to confusion in the term Blitzkrieg: “The vagueness surrounding the idea of blitzkrieg tends to increase when one turns to more recent interpretations.” (Shimon Naveh “In Pursuit of Military Excellence” p. 106). If one is truly interested in presenting the events surrounding this battle accurately, it necessarily follows that one would not use terms that are vague and have multiple interpretations. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
That vagueness is what several historians have worked hard to fix. EyeTruth (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Naveh is saying the term is vague, and the vagueness is more pronounced in the writings of modern writers ... like Frieser. What the above citated source is saying, EyeTruth, is that the term is vague. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
But Frieser in the very first chapter of his book also recognized this vagueness and then set out to rectify it through the remainder of the book. EyeTruth (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Again I see you being informed that your tone and wording are offensive, and again a protestation from you and the promise that you will try harder in the future. Please. Your tone and wording are no acccident. The only explanation for repeatedly insulting the other editors is that you wish to. Acting in this manner undercuts the respect the other editors may hold for what you have to say. Certainly that bridge was crossed quite some time ago for me. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Cool story bro. EyeTruth (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
If you have nothing to say, my advice to you would be to say nothing. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
There are tons of historians who do not refer to Kursk as a blitzkrieg (of any type). However, since they don't characterize in any way, it's a bit hard to provide page numbers. And, again, let me point out that the plans for Kursk do not fit the definition as used by Friesner (2005), so that's one can be cited in opposition to the failed blitzkrieg characterization.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
What exactly do you think Frieser considers a "far-reaching thrusts"? What about the Balkan Campaigns which are popularly recognized as classic blitzkrieg campaigns? How "far-reaching" were the thrusts? Granted, a "far-reaching thrust" is a feature of the blitzkrieg (according to Frieser and possibly many others) but who said the 100+ kilometer drive to Kursk is not "far-reaching"? It will require a tiny bit of original synthesis to use Frieser as a source in opposition of the blitzkrieg characterization because he never specified or even implied the range of distance that would count as a "far-reaching thrust".EyeTruth (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
You try to hard to twist what an author says to support your view. Besides, I don't care what Frieser considers far reaching. He does not define Blitzkrieg in a manner that the original operators would agree with.Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
So simple questions sound like an attempt to twist stuff? Whatever floats your boat. EyeTruth (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, well, the main point is that Frieser does not define Blitzkrieg in a manner that the original operators would agree with, as shown unequivocally below. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Here is Frieser's definition: "This brings us to the following definition: By blitzkrieg we mean the concentrated employment of armour and air forces to confuse the enemy with surprise and speed and to encircle him, after a successful breakthrough, by means of far-reaching thrusts. The objective is to defeat the enemy quickly in a decision-seeking operation." Notice that in the context of the passage, a far-reaching thrust is a thrust that enables the encirclement of the enemy: "encircle [the enemy]... by means of far-reaching thrusts." EyeTruth (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Guderian would disagree with that definition. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
To further explain this to you, during the course of the conflict Hitler repeatedly interfered in the conduct of affairs. Many heated discussions ensued between Hitler and Guderian, particularly over Hitler’s orders to break off the advance to attempt to encircle enemy forces. Such maneuvers did not fit Guderian’s vision of maneuver warfare. Here is a passage from Liddell-Hart's "The German Generals Talk" where he is discussing their opinion on the invasion of Russia: Blumentritt revealed that, from the start, there was a vital conflict of ideas about the method of operations. "Hitler always wanted to carry out encirclements - and Bock agreed with him. But Guderian and the new school of tank experts had a different idea - to drive deep, as fast as possible, and leave the encircling of the enemy to be completed by the infantry forces that were following up. Guderian urged the importance of keeping the Russians on the run, and allowing them no time to rally."(Liddell Hart p. 179-180) Does Frieser explain why he includes envelopment as an element of Blitzkrieg warfare, where Guderian makes no mention of it in his treatice on armoured warfare, and in the course of the conflict argued strongly against using the armoured force in this manner multiple times? Does Frieser offer an explanation for why that is the case? If so, state where he makes this case. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Frieser and a whole bunch of other modern historians would agree judging by their respective definitions. And how do you know Guderian would disagree? Your sources for Guderian's description of it? (Else we have the OR mess all over again). EyeTruth (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have read Guderian's "Achtung-Panzer" and his "Panzer Leader". Have you? As to Frieser, does he believe he is a more qualified expert on German mechanized warfare in World War Two than Guderian was? If so, where does he make that claim? Are any of these other historians more qualified to speak on the use of armour by the German army and the intention of the use of armour then Guderian? Cite sources where that claim is made. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, if taking that extra step is not a big deal for you, then I shall follow. The info – i.e. blitzkrieg characterization requires a far-reaching thrust – can be added and citations for the relevant portions attached. The extra bit which is lacking citation – i.e. Citadel was not far reaching thrust – could be left as is and hopefully one day an editor will find a citation for it. I won't delete it or tag it with citation needed. Yes? No? EyeTruth (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
No. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanx for answering but the question was meant for Sturmvogel 66.
That does not change the answer. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gunbirddriver - rather than allow your work here to be derailed by what ultimately seems to be a content dispute, albeit one that apparently included elements of "bad" behavior by some editors, why don't you create one of the reference notes that you're so proficient with and include it immediately after the word blitzkrieg in the text, where you explain that there's no definitive consensus that Unternehmen Zitadelle was ever even conceived of as such a campaign, let alone executed accordingly?

{{#tag:ref|Fanning contends that the word was not the invention of western journalists, but existed in different forms in a variety of languages. He asserts it was not used by German military theorists or by the German Army prior to 1939. In the thousands of military journals produced in Germany between 1933 and 1939, the word is mentioned only once in two different papers. In English and other languages apart from German, the phrase had been used since the 1920s.<ref name="Fanning1997pp283-287"/> [[Richard Holmes (military historian)|Richard Holmes]] contends that the word was anglicized and did not enter into popular/widespread usage until used by journalists, when he asserts it was first coined. Holmes asserts there was no "coherent doctrine" or a "unifying concept of blitzkrieg".{{cite quote|date=July 2013}} Harris notes that it was the British who coined the phrase first, to describe the German successes in Poland. The German popular press did not use the word until later. [[Heinz Guderian]] noted that it was a word coined by the Allies; "as a result of the successes of our rapid campaigns our enemies (emphasis added) coined the word 'Blitzkrieg'".<ref name="Harris95pp337-8"/> Harris concludes, "Blitzkrieg seems to have gained popularity as a piece of journalistic sensationalism – a buzz-word with which to label the spectacular early successes of the Germans in the Second World War. In the West it seems first to have been applied to the Polish campaign of September 1939 and was later attached to the Norwegian and Western campaigns of 1940, to the Balkan campaign of 1941, to some of the North African campaigns, and to the early stages of the attack on Russia, but most enduringly to the bombing campaign against Great Britain (especially London), which is still popularly known as the ’Blitz’."<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1995|pp=338–339}}</ref> German historian Karl-Heinz Frieser disputes that the word was ''established'' through British journalism. He points to the word and its mention in two articles prior to 1939. However, he does accept the word only gained publicity through journalism. He notes that the British press were first to do this on 25 September 1939, but also points to the extensive use of the word by the German press in 1940 after the fall of France some nine months later.<ref name="Frieser 1995, p. 4-5.">Frieser 1995, p. 4-5.</ref><ref name="FrieserGreenwood2005p4">{{Harvnb|Frieser|Greenwood|2005|p=4}}</ref> |group="Notes"}}

  • Suggestion: If a note like that above can be included in the lede sentence for the article blitzkrieg, why not just do the same here (w/ the appropriate information, of course) and you are being done with it? Azx2 19:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Azx2! Thanks for your interest. I believe the word is misplaced in this article, as it does not explain the operation in either it's planning or execution. Historian's after the fact have at times attempted to use the term in conjunction with the offense, but such efforts are primarily directed at highlighting what the Germans failed to do. The reason they failed was for the very same reasons that Guderian opposed the operation: that is that it was a misuse of the armoured units to have them attack prepared defenses over terrain that was "not good tank country", particularly when there would be no element of surprise in their use. He foresaw significant degradation in the panzer forces for no decisive gain. That was why he opposed so strongly. Thus, for the author of "blitzkrieg" warfare to be so clearly opposed to the operation tells us that it clearly was not what he thought was the appropriate use of armour (i.e. the mission was not a blitzkrieg type operation, and could never hope to be). Thus, to describe it now as a "failed blitzkrieg" is a slap in the face to people like Guderian, who predicted the operation would fail precisely because it violated the principles of blitzkrieg. Hope that helps. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - That explanation of your position resonates with me, Gunbirddriver, and if we were voting, I would also prefer NOT to use blitzkrieg to describe the subject of this article, for reasons elucidated by others. I was just trying to think of how you could move beyond having to debate the issue, but I understand sometimes you must continue to advocate for what you believe to be fair, just and factually accurate. Azx2 20:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Solution

Gunbirddriver, a block does not prevent me from making useful contributions. I suggest you heed the advice I've been screaming all along (which is also mirrored in Azx2's advice) and settle this dispute in a logical manner: add your own sentence or note or whatever to point out that the issue is contested, of course with citation of reliable sources. EyeTruth (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very useful. Okay, I am willing to compromise with you and include a notation that discusses this issue. It is my olive branch to you to place this whole matter behind us. I hope you take it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Finally. BTW, you are in too much rush with your last edit to blitzkrieg. You left the article with lots of red "cite errors". I will try and rectify it. EyeTruth (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Kursk/Archive_6&oldid=1055445973"