Talk:Battle of Tannenberg Line

message: Could someone include this stuff from the page of Estonian museum of ocupation: http://www.okupatsioon.ee/english/overviews/walter.html
Also the 20.Waffen grenadierdivision der SS (Estonian) division before the start of the Soviet offensive on 24th July:
45th Regiment – Ostubaf Harald Riipalu
* 1st Battalion – Hstuf Paul Maitla
* 2nd Battalion – Hstuf Ludvig Kiisk
* 3rd Battalion was still in the process of forming
46th Regiment – Standartenführer Juhan Tuuling
* 1st Battalion – Hstuf Heino Rannik
* 2nd Battalion – Stubaf Friedrich Kurg
* 3rd Battalion – Ostuf Arseni Korp. The battalion was based on the 660th Ost Battalion.
47th Regiment – Ostubaf Paul Vent
* 1st Battalion – Stubaf Georg Sooden. The battalion was based on the 659th Ostbattalion.
* 2nd Battalion – Hstubaf Alfons Rebane. The battalion was based on the 658th Ostbattalion
* 3rd Battalion – Hstuf Eduard Hints. Formed from mobilized men and was at this moment just arriving to the front.
Füsilier-Battalion – Hstuf Wallner. He was on 25th July wounded and replaced by Ostuf Oskar Ruut. The latter was killed on 3rd August and then Hstuf Hando Ruus took over. The battalion was based on the “Narva” battalion (Division “Wiking”), but was reinforced with mobilized men.
Artillery regiment – Ostubaf Aleksandr Sobolev.
On February 1, 1944 the Red Army reached the border of Estonia as a part of the great offensive which began on January 14. Field Marshal Walter Model was nominated the leader of the much-suffered Army Group North. His 18. Army had 14 dead tired battalions against the 4 corps of the Soviet 2. Striking army. The Russians crossed the river and stroke several bridgeheads. The troops landed in Meriküla. The decisive attack based on violent fire of 3000 guns and mine throwers began on February 13. On February 13 the improvised Estonian regiment "Tallinn" was let extend into Auvere (Major Richard Rubach). One Estonian battalion destroyed the landed troops (514 were executed from 525) and the remains cut to pieces the assault reached to Narva - Tallinn railway line. The situation was saved. In addition Russians brought the whole corps but in the meantime the Germans had strengthened. The Estonian division also arrived near Narva. On its way one of the battalions (I/45 Hastuf Harald Riipalu) of the division broke the Russian landed forces which had crossed the Lake Lammijärv during February 14 - 16 near Meerapalu. 2000 Russians were destroyed, much loot gained.
On February 24 (!) the counterattack of the Estonian division to break the Russian bridgeheads began. The battalion of Hastuf Rudolf Bruus (II/46) destroyed the bridgehead of Riigiküla. The battalion of Ostubaf Ain - Ervin Meri (I/46) liquidated the bigger bridgehead of Vaasa-Siivertsi-Vepsaküla, where a young Uscha Harald Nugiseks was awarded the Knights Cross as first of the Estonian soldiers. On March 6, the task was fulfilled.
The raged leadership of the Red Army draw 9 corps under Narva against 7 divisions and one brigade of Germans. On March 1, a new aggressive offensive began in the direction of Auvere. The assault was stopped by the 658th battalion of the first Estonian awarded the Knights Cross Major Alfons Rebane and by the 659th. East battalion of Captain Georg Sooden, fighting in the area of Putki-Sirgala surrounded until the counterattack of the Germans. The attacks continued. Only the lying of pressure changed. On March 17, Russians attacked in the direction of the main offensive with the forces of 20 divisions against 3 defensive, but could not break the defence no matter of the mass of the perished. Up to the end of March the Russians had run out of strength: 70,000 men had perished (on the German side 20,000). On April 7, the leadership of the Red Army ordered to go over to defence. Before that the counterattack of the Germans began. The Russian forces on the Auvere bridgehead were destroyed and the remains were let extend to Krivasoo marsh. In the battles during April Russian lost 50,000 men against 20,000 Germans. The huge battle lasted for three months, one of the greatest in the world history of war (!), cost Russians 120,000 fallen and for 40,000 Germans. The part of the Estonian army units could not play decisive part in this giant struggle but the Estonian soldier showed himself among the best volunteers of the world (German, Walloon, and Scandinavian) worthily. Russians barbarized of the defeat, organised many terrorised, bombing attacks towards the towns of Estonia in March, incl. bombing of Tallinn on March 9. In June 1944, because of the strategical problems elsewhere, 5 German incomplete divisions and the Estonian division stayed at the front of Narva, in total 27,000 men. Russians had 2 armies with 205,000 men. The superiority of the fire force was 8-, of the air force 9- and in tanks 3 times. On July 24 the Russians began an attack in the direction of Auvere to surrender the unit of the army of Narva ( III German SS-mounted corps of Obergruppenführer Felix Steiner ). They were stopped by I battalion (Stubaf Paul Maitla) of the 45 regiment (Riipalu) and the fusiliers (previous "Narva") under the leadership of Hatuf Hando Ruus ( Ruus was the only Estonian who was awarded the German Cross-in gold).
The evacuation of Narva was organised and settled on the line of "Tannenberg" in Sinimäed. There were unimaginable hard battles from July 26 - August 10; the regiment of Riipalu defended where the key point lay on Grenadiers which. On July 29, the uplands were lost but fighting against overwhelming majority, Estonians took the uplands back on the next day. There was a Russian division against each Estonian battalion here; still the enemy was destroyed. In the 109 corps of army 255 men survived.102 Russian tanks were destroyed. Riipalu and Maitla were awarded the Knights Cross. On August 10, the command of the red Army stopped the attacks having lost 11 divisions and 2 brigades. By their own data, 12,000 Russians fell in Sinimäed.
:1. The proposed info on battalions is too much detail, considering, there were 49 battalions involved on the "Narwa" side. 
:2. The scope of the article does not cover events before the end of July, so only the last para could be useful.
:3. Which pieces of information from the last passage quoted from Walter do you think is missing from the article? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Add?

message: Per our naming guidelines, article should have ONE name, not two. As such I think Battle of Narva (1944) would be best? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the name should be Battle of the Tannenberg Line. We don't put 2 or more names in our article titles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, perhaps even shorter "Battle of Tannenberg Line" Erikupoeg (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever happened to the seeking of consensus and requesting moves?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: From the edit summaries, I'm guessing that the point of the globalization tag is that the editor wants to see more information about the Soviets in the article.  If you can address this issue, please do.  Also, whenever you place a tag like this, it's very helpful to other editors if you leave a note on a talk page to explain your concerns, in as much detail as you can.  Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Globalization tag never made much sense since there are Russians sources listed at the references section.--Termer (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. I recall the tag was first placed some time ago when the article was primarily based on German sources. Since the Russian sources have been added, now Estonian sources. So this tag doesn't really make sense. Martintg (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct, but yesterday, User:Illythr placed the globalization tag again. The contents of the three Battle of Narva articles have been contested by him and User:Paul Siebert at Talk:Battle of Narva (1944). Perhaps you get yourself through their rather ignorant accusations (like: "As the details are not in the major Western history books, the significance of the combat is probably an exaggeration" or "The ratio of 1/10 of the German casualties to the Soviet is exaggerated," without putting forward any suggestions for the correct numbers. You may have some arguments to put forward over there. Could do good for the articles. --Erikupoeg (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, the shining spirit of friendly collaboration is practically bursting through all cracks here! :-D So far, we have a single Estonian scholar talking about both the great significance of the battle and using a rather peculiar method of estimating Soviet losses to support his POV. Western historians barely mention the whole thing at all (according to the same Estonian scholar). Besides, it's the German name of a German campaign written from a German point of view (brave German armies resisting the Red Tide to the last, leaving only after getting tired of the slaughter...). The Estonian scholar has adopted the German point of view, but the articles never mention that this is Estonian or German historiography, hence the tag. Anyways, better keep the discussion in one place. --Illythr (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "collaboration" with you has provided nothing constructive yet. The article uses 33 American, Estonian, German and Soviet sources. Mainly it is based on Soviet and German battle diaries, with some support of Estonian memoirs. Your accusations will remain hollow, until you deliver a contesting view on the campaign around Narva and in Vaivara Parish, 2 Feb - 19 Sept 1944. --Erikupoeg (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalization tag

message: Is it really necessary to have identical "Aftermath" sections in Battle of Narva (1944), Battle for Narva Bridgehead and Battle of Tannenberg Line? I think it is enough to have it in Battle of Narva (1944), since it is the main article and Battle for Narva Bridgehead and Battle of Tannenberg Line are sub articles. Martintg (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've cleaned up both articles. Martintg (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath section 

message: Where such a number came from? According to the order of battle section 2nd chock army and 8th army amounted ~55000 men totally plus 6 rifle division plus a rifle corps - not an overwhelming superiority for the army attacking strongly fortified positions...--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All formations have a nominal strength, but during war time casualties are replaced with new conscripts. For example a Soviet report of the Leningrad Front in July 1944 reported "In the ranks of the 2nd Shock Army, 46,385 men started crossing Narva river on July 25th. Out of them, a few thousand remained fit for combat on August 1st". Huge losses, but the Soviets were able to replace their men, the Germans couldn't. It was a grinding war of attrition, that is why Germany lost the war. Martintg (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Soviet strength does lack a citation. It may be correct, but it was presented here before I started contributing to the article. At the same time, the "Estonia in 1940-1945" expresses concern, that the Soviet order of battle is kept in secrecy up to date, so it's unlikely to come across an official number of overall Soviet strength around Narva. The numbers listed in the "Orders of Battle" account for the attacking forces at the given date, not for the whole number of forces ready for combat in the battlefront area. I am also concerned about the number of German forces presented in the infobox, as it lacks a citation and is probably and is probably an overestimation at least for July 29. --Erikupoeg (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you provide the Soviet report ? 59.98.198.149 (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet strength 200,000? 

message: Congratulations on a brilliant job! There are just a few things that I suggest to change. First, the name of the hill "Tornimägi" is not readable under a line marking the position of the front. Second, the current versions of the articles use the name "Grenaderimägi" for the middle hill, which is named "Põrguhauamägi" on the map. What do you suggest we do with this mismatch? --Erikupoeg (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'll fix that line. I don't know the history of the names Grenaderimägi/Põrguhauamägi, was there a name change before/after the battle? Martintg (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are rather parrallel names, both are used by the local people. Estonian geographic sources tend to use "Põrguhauamägi". German history sources "Grenadierhöhe" and Estonian historians "Grenaderimägi". </br> There's a bit similar problem with "Pargimägi"/"Lastekodumägi", which is "Pargimägi" in Estonian geographic resources, "Kinderheimhöhe" in German history and "Lastekodumägi" in Estonian history sources. The map is a bit unclear about it, too, using "Pargimägi ehk Lastekodumägi" ("ehk" means "or" in Estonian). I guess any usage is fine, as long as it's concistent. We need to change either the names on the map or in the texts, whichever is easier. </br>One more remark about the map - the Tallinn highway (bold purple line) was not there in 1944. The thin red line running between the hills was the highway at the time, which clarifies, why the hills were so strategically important. I know, it's part of the background data, which are hard to modify, but perhaps a comment in the caption could state something like "Front line positions at the background of the modern road network".  --Erikupoeg (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've updated the image, removing part of the modern road and putting the correct names in place. Martintg (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The map

message: Wikipedia wants to embarras itself that much???
Let me guess...estonian anti-soviet/russian propaganda? AS usual. When will wiki stop embarasing itself that much?
99.231.50.118 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In actuality, it really looks a little bit awkward. Such a formula create an impression that the Estonians did these estimations during or right after the battle, and that they acted as an independent force. To my opinion, the "contemporary indirect estimate" would be better, because this estimete is really contemporary and really indirect. "Estonian" is redundant, because the science (including the historical science) is an international phenomenon. The fact that this estimate was done by the Estonian historian is hardly relevant, although I would trust the Russian numbers more (in case if they will become available in future).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Indirect estimate" is redundant on its own, akin to "approximation of an approximation". Additionally, parties to a conflict often tend to overestimate enemy losses. Because of this, I would favor attributing such estimations directly, if they are done by Soviet or German (or in this case, Estonian) authors. Only when both sides agree on a figure should it be presented without attribution. This seems to have been partially bypassed by a convention that provides "own" losses without attribution unless these are disputed. But since we have an "enemy losses" situation here, I'd rather leave the attribution in. --Illythr (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonian EstimateS???? 

message: While generally I support adding relevant links of films, books, web pages to the article, I do not support linking the film under http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YDKa70x1YY proposed by DJ Sturm. A large chunk of the film is clearly not original footage but a staged act. You can tell only by the soil - the setup for the staged part is a sandy hill (probably a dune or a kame). The Sinimäed hills are solid pieces of limestone with virtually no sand on top. The surroundings are a limestone plain with no sand on it either. --Erikupoeg (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentary film

message: I expanded the lead to include Richard Landwehr with this edit as an author who used this phrase; pls see link. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I partially restored this material since it was covered in secondary sources. I may add more in the next couple of days. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that the Battle of Tannenberg Line is a topic of "popular culture", do you have a source that makes that connection? --Nug (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Sounds fair. Please edit along the lines of the sources. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read Werther and Hurd's paper and I would treat it with caution, it appears to take an apparent revisionist view that there is no distinction in the ideological backgrounds of the German and Baltic Waffen SS units despite the fact that just 5 years after the end of war, in 1950, the Baltic Waffen SS Units were judged to be separate and distinct in purpose, ideology and activities compared with the German Waffen SS. --Nug (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That should make us even warier of a notion of a "Battle of the European SS" as a war of Western nations against bolshevism. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Battle of the European SS" 

message: Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "rm nn regimental commanders - no articles; unneeded piping / italics; uniform image sizes; excessive intricate detail cited to non RS". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding this series of edits. My rationale was "rm fringe publication by Richard Landwehr". --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: + diff; more of Landwehr and Tieke. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I've also notified the editor here. Since there's been no response, I restored my edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: re this revert: diff, my goal was to remove Richard Landwehr (link speak for itself) and Tieke, whose Tragedy of the Faithful was published by the "notoriously pro-Wehrmacht", in the words of one historian, J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing. What passage(s) did you feel should be retained? I see one small reduction that was co-cited to Laar / Tieke, but it looked to me like excessive intricate detail about a nn individual:
*Original: "Soviet tanks broke through in the southeastern section of the front as the Estonian assault team commanded by Hauptsturmführer Oskar Ruut, the 11th Infantry Division (consisting of personnel from East Prussia) and the 300th Special Purpose Division repelled them while suffering heavy casualties."
 
*My version: "Soviet tanks broke through in the southeastern section of the front."
 
If there's anything else I missed, please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also notified the editor here. Since there's been no response, I restored my edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Tieke & Landwehr vs Laar

message: I modified:
*"...24 volunteer infantry battalions from Denmark, East Prussia, Flanders, the Netherlands, Norway, and Wallonia participated within the Waffen-SS. Roughly half of the infantry consisted of local Estonian conscripts ..." 
to read:
*"Waffen-SS forces included 24 volunteer infantry battalions from the SS Division Nordland, the SS Division Langemarck, the SS Division Nederland, the SS Division Nordland, and the Walloon Legion. Roughly half of the infantry consisted of the personnel of the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian)..., per WP:EASTEREGG. 
The piping was confusing as readers would not expect to arrive to the article on the SS Division Nordland by clicking on "Norway". The second change was to unpipe "Estonian conscripts" as not all in the Estonian Division were conscripts. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piping 

message: Soviet Casualties are too high and Logically They would have retreated as such casualties are unsustainable and there is no mention of retreat being blocked 61.2.81.176 (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Casualties too high 

message: How it can be tactical victory when they lost territory as they lost orphanage hill ? 117.254.63.155 (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  German tactical victory?