Talk:Battle of Moscow/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
Combatant strength states approx. 100,000 on either side, yet the losses of the Soviet Union are listed as 650,000. Huh? -- 22.214.171.124 22:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see the figures have been adjusted, but there is of course a general problem with these boxes. Eastern Front battles were not one-day events, but sequences of operations extending over weeks and months, and involving at times major reinforcements. The boxes can thus anyway only give a rough impression about the scale of battles. --Kolt 16:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think there is also some suspicion that the casualty figures for the German offensives of 1941 & 1942, usually derived from German wartime reports, may be exaggerated to a greater or lesser degree. However, I've never run across any proposed 'corrected' numbers. — B.Bryant 04:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
removed an irrelevant line
I removed the following line "In present-day Russia the ruined hulk of a German panzer rusts away outside Moscow, a silent reminder of how far the Germans moved." From my opinion that is an irrelevant fact , while I believe that it is true , it adds nothing of specific information to the article . (1)Where in Russia first of all? Didn't the person mean Moscow? (2)There is a fault with it : where in Moscow then does this panzer tank is ? Street , boulevard , neighbourhood ? It should be at least stated in detail or left out - it contributes nothing to the article - Babur
Manfred von Richtofen
The article asserts that there was a commander named "Manfred von Richtofen" at the Battle of Moscow, and links to the article about the famous pilot commonly known as the "Red Baron". I don't want to remove this right away since it has a citation (which unfortunately I don't have available to check), but it seems dubious to me. This edit has been in the article for a *long* time, so I don't want to delete it right away, but it should definitely be looked at I think. It also makes me question if other parts of the article have been tampered with. 126.96.36.199 21:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, it is Wolfram von Richthofen, who was a feldmarshall by that time. Obviously, since Manfred died in 1918, he would not be able to take part in the battle. :)
- Thank you very much for pointing that one out! Cheers, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem. ^^ Thank you for your *very* quick response! I looked at your other contributions and you're a real benefit to Wikipedia. I just fix typos and stuff. ^^;; Maybe i should get around to getting a real account. >.>; However thanks to you I'll forever have an image of the Red Baron proudly serving the Reich, throwing his men against the gates of Moscow and Stalingrad, while a grizzled hammer-and-sickle-bedecked Snoopy returns sniper fire from within. ^^ 188.8.131.52 23:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Defenders of Moscow: Illustration
I am working on a project regarding Andrey Andreyevich Vlasov. As you will see, he played a part in the defence of Moscow, and his picture was printed along with other officers in Pravda. I have seen this illustration somewhere on the web, but I lost it.
Does anyone know where it is?
My e-mail address is in my profile.
--Mjjohansen 20:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hitler's Decision to Hold Ground at All Costs This has been a highly debated topic among historians: was this decision Hitler's only great military feat or was it as mistaken as the many other times he made this order? Some believe allowing any retreat would have led to a complete German collapse and that the Nazi forces avoided this largely to Hitler's steadfast refusal to listen to any of his Generals. Others, like von Rundstent, note they would not have been in such a position if not for Hitler's criminal overconfidence in the first place.
Anyway, when I get some time I will put in a little section on this. I guess I have to register first.
Hitler's Decision to Hold Ground at All Costs
It was one of Hitlers head long rush into a risky bet which lucky for him (and the German Army) paid off. During that time many if not all of the Generals were screaming to OKH to allow withdrawal, but many of the equipment and men were in no state to move. Had the withdrawl order be issued, the retreat most likely would be a blood bath - Am not using the word collapse here because the russians were also not in a position in terms of mobility and reserves to exploit any successes completely - see December / January 1942 offensive. OKH could not decide and Hitler stepped in.
--Moscow the Primary Objective?-- In the first paragraph it states that Hitler saw the capture of Moscow as the primary objective. This was not the case Hitler always saw the capture of Leningrad (Birthplace of Bolshevism) as the primary objective with Moscow second. He changed his mind again on the 8th july 1941 putting the priority of the the Ukraine over Moscow.
--Moscow the Primary Objective?-- Refer Hitler's Directive No.21, IIIA - Red Army to be destroyed first is the Primary Objective. Only then to deal with Leningrad - he isnt too keen in occupying it because that will mean he had to deal with the population - better to just lay seige and let them die off. See Siege of Leningrad - Hitler's directive on 7 October, signed by Alfred Jodl to the Army not to accept capitulation of the city.
We should have disambig for the battles of Moscow from the Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618), and possibly for the French invasion of Russia (1812) (although the latter was not really a battle). As most refs are to the WWII battle, the article should stay where it is, but battle of Moscow (disambiguation) should be created and linked from the top of this articles. Comments?-- 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
How does this link  constitute SPAM? Dfl92
The article states that the Russian and German names are "(Russian: Битва под Москвой, Romanized: Bitva za Moskvu, German: Schlacht um Moskau)" in the opening line.
The Romanization however, does not match the Russian Cyrillic. Is the most common Russian name 'Битва под Москвой - Bitva pod Moskvoy' or 'Битва за Москву - Bitva za Moskvu'. There needs to be consistency here. D Boland (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are right.
- In Russian the standard usage is Битва под Москвой 1941 - 1942 (Bitva pod Moskvoy 1941 - 1942), which translates to (literally) Battle under Moscow to mean "in vicinity of". Since this sounds implausible in English, usually it is translated as Battle for Moscow 1941 - 1942 although it is technically incorrect since no battle for Moscow ever occurred. Wikipedia.ru decided to avoid the entire issue by using the term used in the Great Patriotic War encyclopaedia, Московская битва (1941—1942) and including Битва за Москву, Битва под Москвой in brackets! However, "Moscow battle" usage in English is also going to be opposed by some editors who insist on inventing new names for Soviet operations as it is with Battle of West Ukraine (1944), Soviet invasion of Manchuria, or the numbered "battles" of Kharkov among others. I do intend to bring up this introduction of original research at the Village Pump in the near future--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|Comment(s)||Press [show] to view -->|
|Your second paragraph is at odds with conversations I had back in the 50s with a man who had served as a captain in a panzergrenadier division in Army Group Center. His recollection was that when Army Group Center got to Smolensk it was stalled not by Russian resistance, but by having to come to a decision (made by Hitler himself) whether to proceed to Moscow, or to split AGC into 3 parts, one to hold the Dnepr River line while the main part went south to assist Army Group South (von Rundstedt) surround the Russians at Poltava, and the third part went north to assist Army Group North, which was behind schedule getting to Leningrad.
This was in late July/early August, and by the time AGC reassembled at Smolensk it was late September.
What made this so controversial is that many German generals believed that the failure to proceed directly to Moscow cost the Germans the war. As it was, AGC got across the Moscow-Volga Canal and came down the east side towards Ostankino, but by that time it was early November, a very hard winter set in, and the Russians faced them down. AGC had to pull back to defensive positions.
On the other hand, it was Hitler's decision to make, and if it weren't for Hitler they wouldn't have been there in the first place.If someone will take the time to read Guderian's book cited in your footnotes (by the way, its title in German when I read it was 'Errinerungen eines Panzerchefs', not as you have it) you will find Guderian, who at the end of the war served as Chief of Staff to the Wehrmacht, tells it as my source did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Last edited at 05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)