Talk:Battle of Korsun–Cherkassy

message: It is my intent to assist in the edits of the Cherkassy-Korsun page.  Douglas E. Nash’s Hell’s Gate is required reading for anyone trying to understand this Red Army victory and Wehrmacht disaster.  I may start this effort with correcting the spelling of Stemmermann throughout and use American military rank terminology, etc., even though a Wehrmacht Generalleutnant is not the equivalent of a U.S. Army Lieutenant General on a comparison chart.  The ranks of company grade and field grade officers are clearer.  The Waffen-SS inherited its arcane titles of rank from the SA - and equivalent Army ranks may be more useful.  Even with prior protestations on record here, it essentially will remain more of a German story.  Outnumbered at least 4 to 1 in manpower, and in heavy equipment in odds truly enormous, it is remarkable that any escape from the Pocket succeeded at all.  Numbers of dead, wounded, captured and missing remain controversial, with Soviet/Russian historians claiming to know more about German losses than their own.  Other sources place greater value on German data, since Wehrmacht troops were issued identity disks (similar to U.S. Army “dog tags”) worn by each soldier, whose fate could hopefully be reported to a central personnel register.  The huge pools of manpower of the Red Army had no such refinements in place at that time.--Gamahler 03:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite and Edit

message: The “Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket” page was tagged POV by Mgaved on 22 April 2006 without discussion or any other contribution. I am proposing to remove the tag. Please consider to comment. Thanks.--Gamahler 03:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO the tag should be retained. The article is still very - nearly completely - concerned with German operations. Too, there is no strategic context showing how this battle fit into the campaign. Finally there are POV-ish statements, citing the heroism of German troops while the Red Army is depicted as simply a 'wall of T-34s'. And yes, I am as guilty as anyone of letting this situation stand ;) DMorpheus 14:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed POV tag.  I have no problem with German heroism based on survival; I have no problem with Soviet heroism based on the certainty of victory.  Walls of T34s and hub-to-hub artillery emplacements profoundly influenced Group Stemmermann’s escape route; if this is insufficient, then an elaboration would be helpful beyond a mea culpa for not contributing.  Stavka’s sledgehammer blows had their own crucial quality as Zhukov as their representative, and Konev and Vatutin as able practitioners clearly proved.  Certainly by early 1944 (more likely since Kursk or even Stalingrad) the outcome of the German-Soviet conflagration was sealed.  Strategy anyone?--Gamahler 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I stand by the German figures as stated in my book, "Hell's Gate." The Soviet Union's claims of the number of Germans killed is wildly inflated. Ration strength of the German forces in the Korsun area immediately prior to the encirclement was approximately 65,000 men. The rest is simple math. The number of survivors that I mention in the appendix of Hell's Gate is a result of daily tabulations made by staff officers of First Panzer Army in order to determine the amount of rations to request to feed the men coming out of the pocket. These figures were not publicized and indeed were buried in the First Panzer Army's daily strength reports annex to the Kriegstagebuch. The staff officers and NCOs in the First Panzer Army's personnel staff section who compiled these figures had no motivation to inflate the numbers of men trickling in each day after the breakout; indeed, they would have been rightly punished if they had done so. The tabulations I show are the cumulative result of their efforts. You can also track the number of men day by day as they were shipped out of the assembly areas after the battle, as each train carrying them lists the number of men on each train and their units. While the number of Germans that the Soviets claim are way off, the number of captured roughly correspond to the reality - some 49,000 Germans were carried on the daily strength of Gruppe Stemmermann on 16 February; 36,263 made it out. Roughly 13,000 or so were left behind by 18 February, being either dead or taken prisoner. The Soviets claimed 18,000 prisoners, which would include men taken captive from 24 January until the breakout began on 16 February. Douglas E. Nash, 13 October 2007.
:The above Nash paragraph appears to address comments by the anonymous editor E.W.6.5.06. Edits by E.W.6.5.06 were long ago superseded or corrected or amended with sourced data.  The Nash contribution seems inappropriate under the heading “One sided-ness.”--Gamahler 02:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hell's Gate Numbers

message: The Korsun page has undergone major changes and additions of sourced information in over two dozen footnotes. In my opinion the POV tag is no longer pertinent, perhaps it has not been appropriate for quite a while now.  Korsun was a Soviet victory - but a German story; just as Bataan was a Japanese victory - but an American story. I proffer to remove the tag.--Gamahler 01:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With respect, Strongly disagree. Yes, the article is better-sourced than in the past, but that wasn't the issue. There is simply no justification for making this article a "german story" any more than writing the Bataan article as a 'US story'. It is the very definition of POV. DMorpheus 13:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, however, this should not be an exchange again exclusively between DMorpheus and myself.  In my view, Wiki’s POV explanations and a “German story” or “American story” within an event based on the available literature are compatible.  The outcome of the battle – and build-up towards the conclusion – after all is presented clear and unambiguous with proper citations.  Hopefully other contributors will chime in and express their thoughts.--Gamahler 21:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV redux 

message: I've slightly changed the tag, which may assist. The Soviet side of the story needs expanding; barely any Soviet formations are mentioned, nor plans, changes as a result of the battlefield situation etc. Comments welcome, but I would request that anyone seeking to change the tag again explain their reasons here and wait for further comments for a few days first. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalise Tag

message: Restored a (modified) previous lead summary since the 2 Jan 09 rewrite was flat-out inconsistent with text and sources.  Refocused summary on the subject of the page: the battle of the Korsun-Cherkassy pocket.  The page received somewhat flippantly a new title; in my view, rigid adherence to a naming convention is akin to “one size fits all.”  Prior to imposition, major changes deserve the courtesy of a paragraph on the talk page.--Gamahler (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I may agree that, since this battle is more well known than most, there is a more widely accepted name that might be better than the Soviet operational name, which is generally used for things that are rarely seen in English sources. However, the lead is much worse now. There is a tag on it to globalize, implying that the sources don't cover all aspects of the battle. I am working on its parent operation, the Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive, and am planning to work on this article. Rewriting the lead was something I could quickly do to improve the article prior to completely rewriting it. The reason I didn't mention it on the talk page was, based on the history, I couldn't find anyone actively working on it who would care. Since there obviously is, I'll gladly discuss it, but I do believe that my lead (or a modified version of it) is superior to what is currently up there. – Joe Nutter 01:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Permit me to disagree, but that’s why they make chocolate and vanilla.  Before you “completely rewrite,” suggest you consider Col. Nash’s Hell’s Gate and Zetterling & Frankson’s Korsun Pocket, both published in recent years. Their combined 802 pages stand for instructive reading – and would make you reconsider the concluding sentence of your “superior” prose of 2 Jan.  One form or other of the globalizing tag since April 2006 indeed laments the absence of the-Soviet-side-of-the-story victory lap and is seen as the unforgivable sin afflicting this page.  Looking forward to more superior stuff.--Gamahler (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for telling me about those. I'll see if I can lay my hands on a copy of one or both. However, the current lead does not accurately portray events. For example, in your changes you've removed the commanders of the Soviet fronts, and named the parent offensive by it's exact Soviet codename, something that MILHIST has agreed not to do. You've also not made it clear that it was a Soviet offensive. It now no longer is as clear about the location. It does not mention the period of fighting as the Soviets closed in, or the relief attempt that eventually let perhaps 10,000 out of 70,000 escape. It was very clearly a major Soviet victory, and the new lead, by mentioning the German breakout and implying its success before pointing out the heavy losses suffered does not accurately portray that. – Joe Nutter 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I must agree with Joe here, the Jan 2 lead is far better as a brief intro to the battle. It is a small step towards correcting the major "unforgivable sin" (nice term) of this article. I look forward to his rewrite. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  I should add - the globalize tag should stand even if the Jan 2 intro is restored, because the bulk of the article obviously remains very POV/unbalanced. Hopefully we're on the road to fixing that. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How can I argue with dictums of both Joe and DM proclaiming the 2 Jan write-up as far better.  Let me say though that some of 2 Jan lacks wiki “truthiness” – that is “verifiability” with sources of recent vintage.  The Korsun Pocket was a major German defeat; this is not a new revelation from on-high, but is sourced already in the text.  I know where the “perhaps 10,000 out of 70,000" fantasy comes from.  Based on that phrase alone I have some concerns for what is promised.  I am mildly peeved though by what I perceive to be Joe’s thinly-veiled dismissal of the two volumes I suggested for sourcing.  I think especially Nash is an essential read for any discussion of Korsun-Cherkassy.--Gamahler (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's discuss edits, not editors, and avoid personal attacks/sarcasm as much as possible, OK? The article as it stands has been tagged for quite some time as unbalanced/POV-ish. If we can work together to correct that, it'll be an improvement. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources I own are: Carell, Scorched Earth; DA Pamphlet 20-234; Nash, Hell’s Gate; Perrett, Knights of the Black Cross; Zetterling & Frankson, Korsun Pocket. --Go!--   Gamahler (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies if I sounded dismissive; I did honestly mean that I would inquire at nearby libraries to see if I could find a copy. If you want to go ahead and add all the information from those and all the other sources you mentioned, then please do. That will improve the article. I will also add all the information from the sources that I have. As said above, the article has been tagged for various forms of bias, for the last two years. Obviously there are plenty of people who think that is needs improvement, which I am trying to bring. – Joe Nutter 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Be bold” vs. rash? 

message: Shouldn't the article be named Battle of the Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket, as Korsun–Shevchenkovsky Offensive views battle only from the Soviet side? DJ Sturm (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article's name

message: The German losses figures of both Nash and the Zetterling, Frankson duo are based on contemporary German figures which are falsely assumed to be incotestably truthful. Whenever Soviet figures disagree with them they are dismissed as exaggerations if not downright propagandistic fiction. Rudiger Overmans is but one scholar to have observed that the casualties figures admitted by German commands were drastically deflated. This battle happens to be one where the deflation was particularly extreme. The reason for this is obvious. The German command rightly feared that the death and capture of over 70,000 men would cause the long suffering morale of army group South's troops to collapse. The lie that over 30,000 men made it out of the pocket proved too ridiculous to fool their men. While inevitably failing to fulfill its original purpose, this lie does seem to have found an unforeeen use, as a device for duping future historians into believing that Wehrmacht generals were far more successful than the enemy allowed them to be. Soz101 (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, so if the current numbers are more widespread in Western sources, they get prevalent usage. If you have authoritative non-German non-Soviet sources supporting your point, do bring them in. --Illythr (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Don't get me wrong, I'm not demanding a source that directly accuses the Germans of lying (such a source would probably be of Mukhin-level quality). You see, the current article presents both claims equally, so, at a first glance, the NPOV is ok. What you most likely mean is that the current POV distribution violates WP:UNDUE, and, considering that someone has put a globalize:Germany tag on the article, you're probably right. However, to actually get something done here, a source is needed that's authoritative enough to override the present POV distribution. I don't know of such a source, unfortunately. Also see the section above for a similar discussion. --Illythr (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet again on German Losses

message: everyone seems to forget that the german losses for the battle should include the losses of the III panzerkorps and other german forces that took part in the relief attempt איש שלום (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Zetterling Critique ("Comments on the Soviet General Staff Study on the Korsun-Shevchenkovskii Operation," 2 September 2002), III Panzerkorps suffered 630 and XLVII Panzerkorps 668 casualties from 1 through 29 February 1944.--Gamahler (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  German losses 

message: *The encircled German units broke out in coordination with a relief attempt by other German forces, with "roughly two out of three" encircled men succeeding in escaping the pocket,Nash, p. 366 "and almost one third of their men ... dead or prisoners."Zetterling & Frankson, p. 280
*Nash, Douglas E.  Hell's Gate: The Battle of the Cherkassy Pocket, January–February 1944 .  Southbury, Connecticut: RZM Publishing, 2002.  
*Zetterling, Niklas & Frankson, Anders. The Korsun Pocket: The Encirclement and Breakout of a German Army in the East, 1944.  Drexel Hill (Philadelphia), Pennsylvania: Casemate Publishers. 2008.  .
Alternate sources:
*Weinberg, A world at Arms: "of some 50,000 to 70,000 in those trapped in pocket as many as a third were able to escape..."
*Glantz & House, When Titans Clashed (2015 ed.): refers to German number of escapees (30,000) as 'claims' and finds the Soviet version "more credible": 55,000 German troops killed or wounded, and 18,000 taken prisoner. "Any units that may have escaped lost all of their equipment, were in shock, and had to be completely reorganized."
I'd like to modify the lead para to introduce the range of numbers reported in sources. Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead para  

message: This source is used extensively in the article:
*Department of the Army Pamphlet 20–234. Operations of Encircled Forces: German Experiences in Russia.  Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952.
The article states about it: 
:One of the initial historiographical works on the fighting at Korsun was a 1952 U.S. Army publication, DA Pamphlet 20–234, Operations of Encircled Forces: German Experiences in Russia. This work was written in the context of NATO's Cold War confrontation with the Soviet Union, and authors were highlighting historical experience of the Wehrmacht that may have proven useful to NATO forces had a war between the Soviet Union and NATO broken out.DA Pamphlet 20–234, p. 1 Like most of the English-language works on the Eastern Front of this era, it was written from the German point of view.
The pamphlet was written based on the accounts of Wehrmacht's commanding officers, without the benefit of any records, and is therefore unreliable. I don't believe it's a suitable source for the article. I suggest reducing content cited to it to basic facts and replacing it wherever possible. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it does not appear that there are objections, I will go ahead and trim the content source to it where possible. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this series probably should not be relied on unless we can corroborate it with scholarly material or when discussing just the German POV. GABHello! 03:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Department of the Army Pamphlet 

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) 22:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion