Talk:Courland Pocket

message: By the time Army Group Courland surrendered on 7 May 1945, it was the only substantial German formation left intact.
On the 7th it was not the only substantial German formation left intact. There was the German garrison in Norway and Army Group Centre.
It seem that the date of surrender of the Pocket could be considered one of several dates according to this article. But I have not read that the surrender was considered to be on the 7th. For example Bevoor (Berlin: the downfall 1945 p.420) writes "Despite Jodl's signature in Rheims Schoerner's army group.... and neither General von Saucken nor the huge force still trapped in Courland had surrendered." 
So what is the source that says that they surrendered on the 7th ? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrender

message: Does anyone have origin/source information for color photo Kurlandfront.jpg?
Thank you!
GintsN 23:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin of color photo Kurlandfront.jpg 

message: Before getting into an edit conflict, please tell me what you think the purpose for the formation of the blockade was--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A sane strategic commander (if ever he had been, it was defiantly something that Hitler was not by that stage of the war) would have tried to evacuate as many troops as possible by sea to defend Germany. Once it was obvious to the Soviets that the Germans were not doing that keeping them bottled up in a large pocket that, -- unlike those in East Prussia around Konigsberg (hence the need for the East Prussian Offensive to press home an assault on that pocket) -- did not threaten their lines of communications for the main attack on the "lair of the fascist beasts" was strategically sound as the Soviet troops and material needed to contain the pocket was less than the effort to finish it off. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: Just wondering how someone can write a book in 1945 claiming to be inside Dönitz's head. Just curious for the basis/records for this. Dönitz was certainly holding out for evacuation to Germany, that doesn't mean U-boats. —PētersV (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The way this bit is written in the article isn't quite correct. The Germans referred to the pocket as the "Courland Bridgehead", Hitler believing that a reversal of the war was still possible at this late stage, believing that these new subs would bring victory in the Battle of the Atlantic, allowing Germany to push the allies out of Western Europe, giving Hitler a year to focus on the east using Courland as a springboard for a future offensive on the northern flank, hence the dogged defence. A pipe dream ofcourse, but that was the German rationale for defending that position. Martintg (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I've been bold and updated that section accordingly with an appropriate reference. Martintg (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoping for U-boats? 

message: You will note that I've created a section on the historic representation of the battle, or series of battles, and the intent of the Soviet command. I've added a reference to the casualty figures of Krivosheev, which support the Soviet analysis. The figures from German military sources are there also, with space for their sources to be identified. This would seem the most equitable solution.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Historiography

message: I assume the cryptic reference "p.171, Dunnigan" refers to something by wargames designer(!) Jim Dunnigan, most likely the edited collection The Russian Front: Germany's War in the East, 1941-45 (first ed., as War in the East, New York: Simulations Publications, 1977; new UK ed. London: Arms and Armour Press, 1978). However, it is not possible to determine which edition (UK or US, etc.) of the book is being cited. As requested above by Pēters on 16 April, please provide a proper citation, ideally also giving the article from the collection being quoted. An incomplete reference is almost more useless than no reference at all. There seems to be a lot of scrutiny of so-called "Latvian" or "German" sources, but what is the quality of the scholarship being quoted elsewhere in the article? No-one will ever be able to judge, if the bibliographic details remain hidden from us. —Zalktis (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who added the Dunnigan reference - it certainly wasn't me. Perhaps it's easier to remove it? Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would tend to agree. I scrolled back through prior versions and couldn't find where it was added. It must have come with the original cut and paste from another article which created this article. I assumed that other article was the Courland Army Group one, but no Dunnigan there either that I could find. —PētersV (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The author of the original version said it was from Courland and the original is still there - Courland#Courland_during_World_War_II, reference you're discussing, however, was added on 16 april this year by User:Mrg3105 (diff) ~~Xil * 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're that concerned about the footnote / source, you can always remove it - the content of the sentence (i.e. that the Germans began defending the bridgehead against attempts to reduce it) is agreed on by nearly all of the other sources given anyway, so a footnote isn't really essential at this point. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dunnigan 

message: Could someone provide page numbers for references c,d,e and f to this book? Alæxis¿question? 09:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the referencing to this book, as it is a vanity press publication, meaning WP:SELFPUB, and hence isn't a reliable source for this project. Sourcing to a reliable source now needs to be found; time will be given, otherwise all uncited information should be removed. --Russavia Let's dialogue 09:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  McAteer's book 

message: I think this article should mention the Panther Line.
My hunch (and, no, I don't have the sources to back it up) is that the Courland Pocket held out so long because they were falling back from a series of defensive lines (unlike the rest of the Germany military): first, the lines used in the siege of Leningrad, and then the Panther Line of 1943. What's unique about the Baltic is that it was on the frontline, broadly speaking, throughout the whole of the war on the Eastern Front.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is not simply a lack of WP:SOURCE but WP:OR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you read about the fortifications in Courland and the goal of defending (or taking) the port of Liepaja (Libau), there's really no connection to the Panther Line. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panther Line 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Courland Pocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314063229/http://www.historia.lv/publikacijas/gramat/mangulis/09.nod.htm to http://www.historia.lv/publikacijas/gramat/mangulis/09.nod.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "c/e; npov; unneeded section breaks; reducing uncited intricate detail unlikely to be available in secondary RS". --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: Citations need to be added where the Citation needed parts of the article are so this can be promoted to a B-class article for the Military History project. I will eventually get books on the Courland pocket and so could be able to solve this problem eventually. Arthurcurrie (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Wasn't there a mention in this article of the intent on the part of at least some of Army Group Courland to try to form a freikorps, or a freikorp, whichever is correct? I remember such a thing from somewhere. SlyGuyFox (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freikorps 

message: The historiography section looks like an attempt to describe both the "Russian POV" and the "Western POV", but in reality these don't appear so different, particularly because the "western" sources include quotations from Stalin! FOARP (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historiography POVfork 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion