Talk:Battle of Kursk/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Recent edits to the infobox figures

(PING! User:Choy4311)

Using "semi-official" Soviet figures for German strength and casualties is not the best approach, especially when better options are available. It makes sense to use figures extracted from German archives for their strength and casualties displayed in the infobox and then discuss any other blind or rough estimates made by their opponents in the article. Same goes for the Soviet figures, although they're still lacking enough "true" primary sources for now (since a good number of them are still locked up or have only just become accessible). Other comments, thoughts? EyeTruth (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Also some of the changes you applied are straight out wrong. For example, some of the figures you moved to new subheadings do not belong there. Most of these figures are different because of their different contexts, which is not just always a difference in the time periods they refer to. EyeTruth (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That guy had attempted several times to change sourced content or introduce new numbers, sometimes they were just invented. I reverted the casualties sections, archival research should be preferred over Soviet contemporary claims. Regarding the changes in the strenght section I dont know whether they are correct, perhaps they must be reverted too, as I dont trust this guy (I had checked his edit history some time ago and reverted unsourced changes he did in several other articles). StoneProphet (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

He/she didn't just add stuff, he reshuffled already existing stuff, and even deleted some. He created a new subheading for the Strength infobox section and moved figures to that. For example, 3,549 aircraft was moved to Soviet counterattack, which is wrong, and 2100 aircraft was replaced with 1500+ aircraft. Even after you fixed his/her edits, the mess made is not yet entirely wiped. Reverting his/her entire edit would be the best solution. EyeTruth (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Broken Harvard citations

While fixing broken Harvard citations I made the following assumptions:

  • Osprey (1992) = Healy (1992)
  • Glantz (1999) = Glantz, Orenstein (1999)
  • Glantz (2004) = Glantz, House (2004)
  • Töppel (2002) = Töppel (2001)

I was unable to resolve these errors:

  • Glantz, House (no date) could be either The Battle of Kursk (1992) or When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (1995)
  • Glantz (1991): There is no such book in the bibliography. -- Dianna (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Glantz (1991): This is most likely Soviet operational art in pursuit of deep battle.

Glantz (1999): This could either be Glantz & Orenstein (1999) or Glantz & House (2004) (first published 1999).

No clue about Töppel.

I will check the Glantz' later to see what came from what. EyeTruth (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Other citation errors

  • Zagola (1989) – needs a full citation, including book title, author details, publisher name, location, and ISBN
  • Magenheimer, die Militärstrategie Deutschlands 1940–1945 – needs a full citation, including book title, year, author details, publisher name, location, and ISBN
  • Engelmann, Zitadelle – needs a full citation, including book title, year, author details, publisher name, location, and ISBN
  • Geheime Kommandosache – this needs a full citation. "Geheime Kommandosache" means "Top Secret" in German
  • Wendt p.18 – needs a full citation, including book title, year, author details, publisher name, location, and ISBN
  • Piekalkiewice, Unternehmen Zitadelle, p. 154 – needs a full citation, including book title, year, author details, publisher name, location, and ISBN
  • Rokossovsky, p. 266 – needs a full citation, including book title, year, author details, publisher name, location, and ISBN.

There's more, but I am stopping there for now. – Dianna (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessing sources

There's four links to militera.lib.ru. These appear to be archives of memoirs of various people. We would need more information about who wrote these documents and when so their reliability can be better assessed

  • http://bse.sci-lib.com/article117708.html is useless as a source, because it points to a place where you can buy an 18-volume set of books. We would need to know the volume number and page number, plus the usual book title, author/editor names, ISBN, etc. -- Dianna (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/zhukov1/17.html http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/rokossovsky/15.html

The two memoirs above were written by Georgiy Zhukov and Konstantin Rokossovsky, respectively. They are generally accurate except when it comes to things that have considerable political significance, and obviously they represent the Soviet perspective.

My guess is that this http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/mikoyan/04.html was done by Anastas Mikoyan.

This article http://bse.sci-lib.com/article117708.html is actually a catalogue of WWII Soviet Fronts and their commanders. EyeTruth (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation – letter of 8 April

The Google Translate (GT) translation is problematic even though it reproduces all the key terms. The possessive adjectives, among other things, are misplaced in the GT translation if you compare it to translations from secondary sources. In the GT translation, the Germans are attacking their own groupings, one of which even though named "Belgorod-Khakov grouping" is around Kursk. Whereas, in the other translation, the Germans are attacking Kursk with their groupings.

Here is another example from that same letter of 8 April. GT gives: "For our troops on the offensive in the coming days in order to preempt the enemy consider inappropriate. It would be better if we wear down our opponent on the defensive, Kicking his tanks, and then by introducing fresh reserves, the transition to a general offensive definitively We'll finish the main enemy group." Whereas two secondary sources give: "I consider it inadvisable for our forces to go over to an offensive in the near future in order to forestall the enemy. It would be better to make the enemy exhaust himself against our defences, and knock out his tanks and then, bringing up fresh reserves, to go over to the general offensive which would finally finish off his main force."

Here is another example. GT: " It should be expected that the enemy this year at the basic rate of offensive actions will do to your tank divisions and air force, as it is now much weaker infantry prepared for offensive action than last year." Secondary source: "We can expect the enemy to put greatest reliance in this year's offensive operations on his tank divisions and air force, since his infantry appears to be far less prepared for offensive operations than last year." EyeTruth (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Correction – postponement of Citadel

Clark mentions that the conference led to postponement of the launch date to 12 June. Glantz says no date was set at the end of the conference because Hitler simply couldn't come to a decision. But in another of his work (Soviet Military Intelligence), he clarified that a few days later the German High Command settled for 12 June. Clark wasn't exactly wrong – because the conference indeed led to the postponement – but was rather ambiguous with his wordings. Hence I reworded it in the article. Of course, different wordings but the same result of ambiguity. Once I pin down the page number for SMI, I will clarify things. EyeTruth (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Article length and copyedits

I've just spent the last three days copyediting this monster of an article, but I only succeeded in trimming about 5k from it. It's still over 150k long and crying out for splitting up into I would think at least three parts, if not more, to satisfy MoS guidelines. I tried to make things a bit easier for myself by changing a few things to British English (I'm a Limey, but the first Brit/Am Eng I came to was British - honest!) We had the rather sorry state of British English and American English ['defence'/'defense', 'gotten', etc and dates that were dmy, then mdy on one page!] and don't get me started on the excessive linking! Navigating round this hodge-podge is a bit of a nightmare.

Looking at the talk page, just about everyone is agreed that this page is far too long and that something should be done. But when is the 'great division' going to start? RASAM (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

We have already performed the split offs that we discussed. Both the sections on Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev and Operation Kutuzov have been cut down to summary paragraphs and the bulk of what was here (about 9,000 bytes) was transferred to the corresponding sub-articles. It's the readable prose that count in terms of content, and we are right around 100 kilobytes, despite the reductions. We need to work on it a bit more. I believe the intention of EyeTruth and Sturmvogel 66 is to get in what might be valuable and then cut back down. We would welcome the help, though. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Changing the subject slightly, I've put a few comments here, simply because there is not enough room in the edit box:
1. Where possible, I've briefly introduced a few individuals/formations and so on, e.g. 'General von Kleinschmidt, the commander of 1,000 Panzer Division' or 'the 1,000 Panzer Division in Bolton' or whatever.
2. Picture captions required a little TLC.
3. I've also changed a few ampersands (&) to 'and' (per MoS).

There are many more edits that are still needed, I'm sure.

RASAM (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of General von Kleinschmidt and the 1,000 Panzer Division. Are you sure you're on solid ground there? If you can source it that's fine. The rest of it sounds good to me. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the next stage is to transfer all the material on the actual conduct of the German attack to the Operation Citadel (currently a redirect, IIRC) in the hopes of getting this monster down to about 50K of readable prose, from the current 90K and summarize the details of the northern and southern attacks. Other things that we can do is trim many of the quotes which really only add flavor rather than solid info. Stuff like Hitler's attack order, etc. We also need to start prepping this article for a run at GA status later this summer, maybe August?, and providing conversions for every measurement on first use, adding page numbers to cites where necessary, adding cites, or cutting text that cannot be cited, etc. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The existing northern and southern face sections are 11K and 23K of prose respectively. Summarizing them will go a long way to reducing the main article to our goal of 50K.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, I'm in support of all your suggestions. So are we exporting southern and northern Citadel, each to their own new article or both to a new article (Operation Citadel)? I don't mind whichever you all decide on. The only problem with the former option is that I'm not certain if each sector of Citadel had any prominent official names (whether Soviet or German), unless the ones given in this article can be verified or unless we go with non-official names. (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Since there are no codenames for the northern and southern attacks, I think that we just stick with a single article for now as that will be less than 50K before we start adding details. We can always split them out if we absolutely half to. What I envision for the Operation Citadel article is minimal setting of the stage, just enough to orient a reader, before we start on the nitty gritty of the actual combat. We'll need to copy and cut down the Battle of Kursk infobox to just the Citadel info as well as references, etc and add links back to this article. Feel free to post draft summaries of the sections anytime, there's no hurry.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. We will also trim out Prokhorovka, even in the new article, since it already has its own article. 5KB of prose is too much for the summary of a battle. EyeTruth (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I will start with the easier one. Here is a very rough draft for the northern side:
Structure: intro (units involved), 5-7 July (cracking and mopping up the 1st belt), 8-11 July (as good as dead), 12 July onward (Kutuzov).
The main attack of Model's 9th Army was delivered by XLVII Panzer Corps, to which was also attached 45 Tigers of the 505th Heavy Tank Battalion, and supported on its flanks by the XLVI Panzer Corps, XLI Panzer Corps and XXIII Army Corps.[1] Opposing the 9th Army was the Central Front.[2] Model had decided not to employ his armoured formations at the start of the offensive in order to prevent them from being worn out while breaking the Soviet defences and ending up unable to exploit any breakthrough.[1] As the German preliminary bombardment on the early morning of 5 July ended, the 9th Army attacked the Soviet defences manned by the 70th and 13th Armies of the Central Front.[3] By the end of the first day, the XLVII Panzer Corps had breached the Soviet first defensive belt.[4] In the opening hours of 6 July Konstantin Rokossovsky responded with an armoured counterattack using the 2nd Tank Army.[5] By mid-morning the counterattack had been checked by the Germans and the Soviet tank formations were forced unto the defensive, but the massive tank battle raged on for another four days [I'm sure it's from Glantz, need to find which one and the page number]. The counterattack had succeeded in delaying the 9th Army's own attack which eventually commenced by early-afternoon.[6] 6 July saw the start of fierce German attempt to capture the heavy fortifications of the second defensive belt around the village of Ponyri.[7] The battle for Ponyri continued with renewed German attacks on 7 July, but these also failed to flush the Soviet defenders out of the village.[8] From 8–11 July Model's forces were dead in the water and had nothing dramatic to write home about. (Ignore that last sentence, I will expand that summary later or someone else can chip in).
  1. ^ a b Clark 2012, p. 195.
  2. ^ Clark 2012, p. 203.
  3. ^ Clark 2012, p. 261.
  4. ^ Clark 2012, p. 266.
  5. ^ Zetterling & Frankson 2000, p. 87.
  6. ^ Clark 2012, p. 306.
  7. ^ Clark 2012, p. 309.
  8. ^ Zetterling & Frankson 2000, p. 88.

EyeTruth (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Blunders in the article

Gunbirddriver, I must applaud your efforts on trimming this article. Overall, I think you've done an outstanding job here. However, I can't figure out what you're ultimately trying to achieve in your edits when you do stuff like taking uncited material and injecting them into cited ones (without providing any extra citation as supprort). Presenting information with citation, while preserving the message of the source, is the ultimate goal here. It's better to provide no information than to provide a distorted one or one unsupported by the cited source. Don't you agree? Even without access to the cited source, it is very possible to discern the key message, and then any rewording/rephrasing can be applied accordingly. Well, I'm taking note of them and when I have enough time I will clean them up (and as usual, update you on whatever major changes I make). But seriously, it will be much better if you try to be more cautious about preserving the key message of the source when you are rephrasing or rewording, because so far you seem to have little regards for adherence to cited works. EyeTruth (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The ultimate goal is to describe the events of the Battle of Kursk in a manner that is understandable and supported by available resources. Not all material in those resources need to be included in the article, as excessive or repetitive descriptions actually impede the readers understanding. We have been talking about reducing the size of the article fo quite some time, and as a goal it has been set out that the article should be about half the size that it currently is. A great deal of reduction will need to occur for that goal to be reached. Therefore, we need not quote Hitler on what he pronounced in his Order No. 6, nor do we need to belabor the fact that Soviet deception efforts were effective. Describing that air attacks on bogus command posts were unproductive repeats the idea that the deceptions were effective, and we need to stop repeating ourselves and quoting unneccessarily. The material removed I believed to be unnecessarily wordy, and did not improve the article. The things I added were cited. The point is to improve the article, and as has been agreed the article needs to be reduced. It is improved, but still has a long way to go. There is no sense in telling me you "need" to come behind and "fix" my edits. It would be helpful if you learned to reduce the wordiness in your writing, and were a little less presumptiuous towards your fellow editors. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You got it all wrong. Don't presume that I'm talking about the stuff you cut out, for which I'm actually impressed on how much you managed to trim very well (even though I have a few objections). So read my last post again carefully. I'm talking about the stuff you added, or more correctly how you altered the stuff that was already there. Just one example is how you reworded: "it was the most impressive fleet of German armour yet amassed for a single offensive" to "it was the largest assemblage of German armour yet brought together for a single offensive." That is patently incorrect and it doesn't take much to discern the huge difference between the two statements. In fact, it doesn't take much knowledge of the Eastern Front to know that Barbarossa had a larger assemblage of armour. For that statement, Glantz was speaking of the combined value of quality and quantity, in which case Citadel takes the crown. I know such mistakes might be unintentional, but that is why I advised you to pay more attention to stuff like this in my last post. I will eventually go around and fix them later, but at least try not to accumulate more. (You can call that presumptuous or whatever you feel like calling it). EyeTruth (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you've got it wrong. Barbarossa was not a battle. That would be like comparing the forces involved in Fall Gelb with those involved in the Battle of Arras. You are having trouble seeing the forest from the trees. Now here is what I am more interested in eliminating. You had the article stating: Manstein persuaded Field Marshal Günther von Kluge (commander of Army Group Centre), to immediately attack the Central Front which was holding the northern face of the salient. Kluge refused, insisting that his forces were too weak to launch such an attack. The first sentence is directly contradicted by the following sentence. If Manstein persuaded Kluge, than Kluge would not have refused. Manstein may have tried to persuade him, but one cannot asssert that he did persuade him and then come back in the next sentence and say Kluge refused. That's not good. That kind of error is confusing and muddles the article. Furthermore, the kind of independence of action the statement suggests was not the manner in which Germany fought the war. My guess is the source is both misquoted by you, and wrong on its assertion.
The other point I find troubling is this kind of comment: I think you've done an outstanding job here. However, I can't figure out what you're ultimately trying to achieve. Right, love what your doing but it makes no sense. Probably have to come back through and change it all back. Do you realize that I only trimmed some 3,000 bytes off this bloated article and you cannot help but put your foot in it? Do me a favor, don't tell people you love their edits and then go on to say they make no sense. It's pandering, offensive, and liable to irritate. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You've got it more wrong. Citadel is not a battle. It is an offensive or an operation, and so is Barbarossa. Battles are usually given their names after the event, operations already have their name before the event. Big difference. And on topic, the cited source never called it the "largest assemblage of German armour." As I already pointed out, if you're going to insert a new information, then provide a supporting citation. Please don't waste your time defending this lost cause. As for the other issue you pointed out, I mistakenly omitted "tried to". The correct statement used in the source is "Manstein tried to persuade von Kluge". Thank you for pointing that out.
It is up to you to interpret what I post here the way you want. I think you've put the most effort in trimming this article in the past few days, but your amazing job is not without its flaws. And it is not like I'm saying they are "your" flaws – no body is above mistakes (assuming they are indeed mistakes). Now, you can read any meaning you want into this post as well and cause unnecessary irritation for yourself. Seriously, I don't know how I end up stepping on your toes even when I try so hard not to, or do you really loathe constructive criticism so much? EyeTruth (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
To be frank, what I have been pointing out to you is that you have not been offering constructive criticism. As I have said before, you are not listening to the editors that are working on the project. As to your particular point that you seem to be focused on, allow me to point out that the title of this article is "The Battle of Kursk". That is what we have been working on. So this is considered one battle fought on the Eastern front. It is all in a continuum, so to be pedantic about whether or not more armoured vehicles were used in the intial invasion verses those involved in this one German offensive is not being constructive. Hope you find that helpful. As to errors, the one I pointed out above was a gross one (a very bad one), and it stems from not understanding what is being said in the source text. Here is another. You had:
"Hitler and OKW (German Supreme Headquarters), were confident that the offensive would revitalize German strategic fortunes in the East."
followed four paragraphs later with
"Anticipating the possibility that the German offensive might fail, Alfred Jodl (OKW Operations Chief), instructed the armed forces propaganda office to portray Citadel as a limited counteroffensive."
Jodl was Chief of Staff for the OKW. If Jodl was anticipating that the offensive might fail, then clearly he was not confident that it would succeed. One portion of the article was in direct contradiction with a following paragraph. That's not good. My guess is that you are taking statements right out of a source without thinking about whether or not they reflect the truth. The truth here was that Hitler and the German high command were desperately hopeful, but certainly not confident. For the Germans, Hitler was too inflexible to consider other options or to direct his attention to political solutions, even though political maneuvers had been his strong suite. At this point he was no longer thinking of politics.
Perhaps the root of the problem is that you are not entirely comfortable working in English, I am not sure, but my intention is to improve the article, and I am not content to be lectured about a shade of grey, while having to correct these types of unnecessary errors that have been inserted into a text that is too long anyway. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
And which editors have I not been listening to? You, trying to convince me that your original research is more correct than the words of a respected historian is what you expect me to listen to? It seems that as I suspected your blunder about quantity of German armour was indeed intentional. The worse part is that you're now trying to say it was no big deal inserting original research under the pretext of cited material. This is absolutely ridiculous. You will only make this quagmire worse for yourself if you keep trying to defend it. And on a side note, Kursk was not just a battle. It was a battle about three offensives with strategic goals (at least, initially). Barbarossa, Blue and Citadel all belong to one family of German operations – strategic operations, at least initially.
And yes, "Hitler and OKW (German Supreme Headquarters), were confident that the offensive would revitalize German strategic fortunes in the East." And also, "anticipating the possibility that the German offensive might fail, Alfred Jodl (OKW Operations Chief), instructed the armed forces propaganda office to portray Citadel as a limited counteroffensive." Do you know who else was so excited for the offensive, only to object against it weeks later? Manstein. Hopes were high across the ranks in April but that wasn't so by June. The two passages are paragraphs apart for a reason, unless you've misplace them by putting them next to each other. The paragraphs in between sets up the context for the latter paragraph. That subsection followed a nearly chronological order.
If you see anything else suspected to be a mistake please don't hesitate to point it out so it can be fixed if need be. Most of my edits come in huge chunks, so typos and grammatical errors are bound to be present, and I don't bother to thoroughly proofread them since I simply end up reading what I already have in my memory. Besides, I'm no English prof. EyeTruth (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You do not listen to any of the editors. Look how much ink it took to get you to realize that you should not wiki link a topic in every paragraph. And you have Sturmvogel 66 telling you so. That is a very experienced editor. He says something to me, I try and do it. As to the charge of original research, I resent you making the accusation. Prove it or move off. Now read closely: placing statements in the article like "Hitler and OKW (German Supreme Headquarters), were confident" followed by the Guderian quote where Hitler tells him the idea of it gives him a tummy ache is contradictory and confusing to the reader. If Hitler and the German officers are of two minds before the offensive, then they are not confident. It would be best not to make either statement than to waste text contradicting yourself and confusing the readers. That's pretty straightforward, but I doubt you will see any validity to it, as you continue to argue that you have made no mistake, and who needs to proof read anyway. Well, I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


My standards for wikilink is still what it has always been and it is in accordance with the rule. One wikilink per long paragraph (and not for short paragraphs), which essentially amounts to one wikilink per section (unless a short section). And I already made it clear that anything else is me getting carried away when doing the initial typing, as it can be onerous to keep track of the old and newer wikilinks. Stop distorting past discussions, it is all up there. And did you say I've not been listening? EyeTruth (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You (and another editor) complained about the size of the article, and I agreed that it was getting oversize. EyeTruth (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
How about that! Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You suggested that we put much more emphasis on just trimming it down. I refused, citing that deletion of content alone would do little for this article.EyeTruth (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Not much more emphasis. I stated it had to be trimmed down, and I said so as it was considerably over the size guidelines for MOS. You refused to agree to trim the article down, and apparently saw no reason confine yourself to the guidelines. What you wanted to do was turn the article into a framework, and have all the elements of the article spoken of in their own individual articles. This would mean their would no article "The Battle of Kursk", but just a set of summaries. You went on to say that your plan was the only way to address the size issue, but you were open to other ideas. You then argued that the point of wikipedia was to tell the whole story, claiming that "a complete picture of the battle is the ultimate goal of this article," apparently not realizing that someone would have to judge when it was complete, and not realizing that an operation of this size would have a tremendous amount of aspects to it which could not possibly all be told here on this article. The need for editorial discretion was not embraced, except to say that you felt you knew what was really important.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you a gardener? Because you're very adept with cherry picking (and distorting info). When did I say that the point of wikipedia was to tell the whole story? And yes, a complete picture is the ultimate goal. But ultimately, the editors will come to an agreement on how much is a complete picture. I thought I made that clear already. Can we please just stop this disgraceful bickering and focus on discussions regarding the article and its content? EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a short sentence I was commenting on. "You suggested that we put much more emphasis on just trimming it down. I refused..." It is striking how often your criticisms describe your own behavior. Cherry picking, sure, you have done that throughout. Add to that mis-representing the other editors opinions, accusatorial, argumentative, repetitively dismissive of others input, and most glaringly, utterly unable to recognize your own limits. Yes, it does help to read broadly. If you wish to improve the dialogue, try not throwing comments like "Are you a gardner?" in other peoples faces. It is most unbecoming. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep launching the verbal attacks. And "are you a gardner?" was use used figuratively and harmlessly. It's your problem if you're trying to extract some kind of insultive meaning out of it. I feel this kind of discussion belongs in a forum. I WILL NOT REPLY AFTER THIS! EyeTruth (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Eventually, splitting became recognized as a viable option. I agreed.EyeTruth (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Splitting was one step that we agreed to, but not the only step. It was a first step, and the two splits that we have agreed to have been accomplished, and the article is still way over the guideline. It therefor needs to be further reduced. No agreement from the editors involved has yet been established to create new subarticles.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You should start here: Talk:Battle of Kursk#Time to split?. Also check this out: Talk:Battle of Kursk#Article length and copyedits. Alright, now go read up. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Read up yourself. Try re-reading the discussions on article length, the goal set forth as a target, the initial steps to reach that goal. It seems you are not aware of what others have been saying. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I won't waste talking over this one. It has it's own appointed time. I feel this kind of discussion belongs in a forum. I WILL NOT REPLY AFTER THIS! EyeTruth (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You objected against this article covering everything. I agreed but insisted that it should at least touch all the important aspects.
  • You (and supported by another editor) complained about overlinking, citing that there should be only one wikilink of a term in the article. I disagreed, and stood by one wikilink per section, which is not against the wiki guidelines. But I also accepted my mistake of overlinking.EyeTruth (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
That is not what we said. We said the guidelines established should be followed. Despite having wiki-linked the same topic in the same paragrph multiple times, you asserted that you did nothing in error, and if it was multiple links then it was because it was too much trouble for you to fix it. You went on to explain how you thought linking should be done. One editor said that your response was ludicrous. You then looked to the manuel of style and produced a very broad reading of the guidelines, which did not reflect the intention of the guidelines. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
But the MOS did passively support it, didn't it? Hahahahaha! Relax, I already agreed on that. And hey, I'm not a robot. If I make a mistake (like over linking) and notice it, then I will fix it when I can. Problem? EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
No, you mis-interpreted the guidelines, and after being led back to it, what was it, three times, you still have not gotten it. Laughable? More tiresome than funny, really. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep grasping at straws. I feel this kind of discussion belongs in a forum. I WILL NOT REPLY AFTER THIS! EyeTruth (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You pointed out some other critical errors that distorted the meaning of the affected passages, I agreed and encouraged you to go on and fix them. I will eventually do it myself if you don't.EyeTruth (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not the place of other editors to go behind you and fix your errors. In this case it was being pointed out to try and draw your attention to the fact that significant errors were being inserted into the text. You should have fixed the errors yourself and then determined how they occured, making plans to avoid them in the future. You not only failed to fix the error, you made an explanation for its origin that clearly indicated you had no intention of changing how you were going about editing the page. That is unacceptable.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
What? You expect me to add more confusion to an already chaotic situation? I agreed that it was my grammatical mistake. I was going to fix it once I was clear on what the heck was going on in the article that day. Well, I also made it clear that it was fine by me if you fixed it, if you wanted. If not, then I will eventually fix it (when the deadlock is resolved). Thank you for finally fixing it though. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I expect you to not foul up the text. I don't mind fixing mistakes, but editors have told you goals and guidelines, and your response is completely dismissive. That means you have no care to avoid the mistakes, as ou do not find them significant. A single word can radically change the meaning of a passage. It is not a small thing. Contradictory text is to be avoided. Simple enough. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. I made a single grammatical mistake and now you're bent on ripping on me forever. Have your way. I feel this kind of discussion belongs in a forum. I WILL NOT REPLY AFTER THIS! EyeTruth (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • SUMMARY: It is only in your delusion that I have not been listening to any editors.
Use of the term "delusional" when referring to another editor is misconduct. It assumes poor faith in the other editor. As we have seen, this position of yours is unsupportable. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. That is exactly what is happening here. Besides, I never called you delusional; instead, that particular claim of yours is the delusion. Aren't you tired of flashing the "I've-been-insulted-card"? You should make sure your card doesn't implicate you too, which it currently does on many counts. This is getting all too hypocritical and laughable. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you have defined delusion. Now ask yourself who does that fit. And again, though you have been trying to insult me, you do not carry the regard necessary to get that done. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
"Trying to insult you"? You're funny. Insulting you, or any other person, is not worth my time. I feel this kind of discussion belongs in a forum. I WILL NOT REPLY AFTER THIS! EyeTruth (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
An opinion that is unsupported by a source is an original research. Hence, your blunder about German armour (which is just one blunder among others) is an original research, and worse of all, you have also given the impression that it was not a mistake. And Gunbirddriver, Hitler and OKW were confident in Citadel just after the operational order was issued, but their optimism didn't last. That piece of info makes full sense and is fully supported by a credible source. Is this seriously too complex for you to comprehend? This is why that section nearly followed a chronological order, until you reshuffled the whole thing. We now have April coming after May and then May coming again. Of course in such order, things will become misplaced. When I get notified of my errors, I take the correction. You should do the same.
Claiming another editor is inserting original research into the article is a serious accusation. It is not appropriate to refer to a paraphrase of text as "original research". Your inabilty to comprehend the difference is most disappointing.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed a serious accusation and that is why you should be careful to avoid inserting original research. Paraphrase of... what?!! You are getting very good with trolling lately; perhaps, unintentionally. Also, do you want us to start going over all the original research you inserted (whether intentionally and unintentionally) into this article? I'm more than ready to start digging them up if you insist. But seriously, can we please just stop this disgraceful bickering and focus on discussions regarding the article and its content?
I have not added original research. Perhaps you should figure out what the phrase means, instead of quoting everyone on it. On the other hand, you have taken material directly out of the source, using the same phrasing, in violation of copyright. Not good. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
You reported yourself and another editor also told you that your paraphrase is wrong. HERE. There was no verbatim. Last time you failed to show proof of this so-called verbatim. Enough said.
I finally took a much closer look at what you did in this article. THE END: a more compact article. THE MEANS: merciless butchery. Reading the lead, I saw an outstanding job but as I went down...! I think we need to bring in other editors on these recent cleanup of yours to save us both an unnecessarily deadlock. You're refusing to comprehend simple explanation and at the same time insisting on the credibility of your original research. EyeTruth (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. A better article is the goal, and massive quotes, inserting details on the minutia of the back and forth of discussions, the use of qualifier terms that may have been present in your soource but that are inappropriate in an encyclopedic entry all make for a bad article. These need to be edited out. Having other editors comment is fine, but you would need to be receptive to what they have to say. Thus far you argue with every editor that disagrees with you, whenever disagreement arises.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I've actually been receptive unless it comes down to original research. My fellow editor, don't waste your time with your original ideas on me. Please, just don't waste.EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Phrases like "Hahaha", "LOL" and "OMFG" are completely inappropriate and they need to stop. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmn, interesting opinion. OK, this is now way too hypocritical. How about "hmmmn" and "BTW" and "hehehe". Oh wait, how about "cowboy"? Hahahaha! I won't even bother wasting anymore words on this one lol. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Cowboy is an insulting term? And here I thought I was reaching out. Well, if you need me to explain it all to you, making a laughing comment with someone you are in general agreement with, that is shared humor. When you are derisively using the expression as part of your argument against someone whose opinion you are being critical of, then it is poor form. Okay? You have been using an insulting and derogatory tone from just about the word go, so don't try telling me how you hold the moral high ground. You don't. And just a wiff of your own back and what happens? You are all out of sorts. Go figure. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I use "hahaha" for your comments that put a smile on my face. And yes, "cowboy" is insulting XD. I feel this kind of discussion belongs in a forum. I WILL NOT REPLY AFTER THIS! EyeTruth (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, here's WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Not per section or long paragraph. I don't know where you're getting that from. As you seem to think differently, please cite the source as to why, because I think that you're misinterpreting things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is Sturmvogel trying to point you into the direction of the consensus of wikipedia editors.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought we already went over this. Here. It reads:
Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?" Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in image captions. But note below that as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article. EyeTruth (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
While it is a rule of thumb to link the term's first occurrence, it is still ok to link at start of new section. That's how I understand it.
PS. It was all subjective 5 years ago, and although the guidelines has tightened up since then, they are still open to the user's discernment. However, since the editors' consensus for this article is one wikilink per article, then I'll submit to it. (Anyways, I've been following the consensus ever since the last discussion). EyeTruth (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
And here is your argumentative response. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Yet I gave in to preserve the harmony. Still got anymore complaints. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You're persistence in making an argument makes my point. I am not responding to much of what you are saying not because I agree with your assertions, but because it does not appear to be a profitable enterprise. Sturmvogel repeated what he said earlier for a reason. It did not seem to make any greater impression on you. Think of it this way: Perhaps this is not the time to defend what your wiki link policy is. We all want to improve the article. Instead of saying "I thought we already went over this" it might be better to ask yourself "What is it that I am missing?" Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Another attempt to help you be more in tune with other editors. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't notice but my last post was not asking for a reply. I have nothing left to say. I've poured it all out at once and all that is left is action. I will surely incorporate the many advice above. EyeTruth (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
A stick in my eye for the trouble. Action is not the response sought when it is clear you are in conflict with other editors. The action sought is a move to reach consensus. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Reach consensus? How hypocritical of you. How about you actually start working toward reaching a consensus. Seriously, can we please just stop this disgraceful bickering and focus on discussions regarding the article and its content? Let us get on with the Blitzkrieg and OKW, and deal with those. (We would have reached a consensus on that if we didn't have to waste so much text dealing with wave after wave of editor's speculative inferences (a.k.a original research)).
Here I am, trying to initiate a tenable discussion, willing to reach a scholarly supported consensus, but all I get is a bombardment of speculative inferences, accusations of not cooperating with those inferences, and desperate allegations of misconduct. This is becoming one gigantic joke. If you keep this up, you might get what you want – to send me packing from this "mutual sandbox of ours" (as Sturmvogel 66 calls it). EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda office directives and article length

The section removed related to directions given from Alfred Jodl to the German propaganda office, and though this holds a certain peripheral interest, it is not relevant to the battle being discussed, other than to show that Jodl was not confident that it would succeed. In an article that has over 100K of readable prose this fact on Jodl is of little value to the overall purpose of the page. The primary issue at discussion has been how to reduce the size of the article to a goal of 50K of readable prose. If such a minor reduction cannot be accepted, than how will the goal be achieved? Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We're at ~81 KB readable prose (RP). When the splitting is done, another 25–37 KB RP will be gone. The very fact that it is an inconsequential reduction in size is why it doesn't need to go. Besides, WP:SIZE does not support the deletion of relevant content purely for the sake of size reduction. Moreover, that paragraph underscores the pessimism that preluded Citadel. If you still insist on just size reduction as the only basis, then this is nothing but you trying to find a reason to escalate things into an edit war, of which I have no intentions to be part of. The insignificant fraction of a KB it saves versus the information it presents. Go figure. EyeTruth (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The splitting is already done. It was completed when the sections on Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev and Operation Kutuzov were moved out. That was what we agreed to do to reduce the size of the article, and I am not aware that there is agreement on the article being split further. That being said the article still needs to be reduced in size. We are at about 87 kilobytes of readable prose by my calculation, with the goal being 50 kilobytes. Even if we were to accept your figure of 81 kilobytes, that still leaves the article 31 kilobytes over. The notion that the statement on Jodl's directions to the propaganda ministry is small and therefore should not be removed is nonsense. A small irrelevent section is still an irrelevent section. The idea that there was concern in the German command was already made by the quotes from Guderian, and this section on the propaganda ministry is just more on a point already established in the article. In my view that is the type of material that should be paired back. It is not I who is insisting on the size of the article being reduced. That was something agreed to by consensus earlier, and the idea is supported by the guidelines. No one is suggesting that releveant content be removed purely for the sake of reducing the size of the article. The propaganda ministry directive appears to repeat a point previously made and is irrelevant to the article overall. No one is trying to generate an edit war, but as I pointed out to you much earlier, if we cannot arrive at a consensus than we will most certainly be working at cross purposes. Nobody wants that. To work on a collective enterprise like wikipedia you need to be able to listen to what the other editors are saying, and it would help if you were not simply reverting other people's work and accusing them of bad behavior. Improving the article is the goal. I thought that was what we have all been working towards. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You are clearly beginning to take this whole thing too personal, so much that you're losing track of the main tasks at hand. Read the discussions above to refresh yourself on the pending exportation to reduce the article size. Before you continue going off tangent and referring to yourself as "other editors", what about the once optimistic OKW? If your reasoning even remotely shows sound judgment in it, I will exercise an example for you once again and concede. EyeTruth (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You need to watch your tone in your posts. They're not even directed at me and I'm getting irritated by your snide remarks. How can you expect to collaborate when you're saying insulting stuff like: "If your reasoning even remotely shows sound judgment"? You may well be angry with another editor who you disagree with, but you need to calm down and reply in a reasonable tone. If you have to, step away from the computer for an hour or so and let yourself simmer down. I get pissed off as well at editors who are being unreasonable or disagreeable and I've found it's best to keep the moral high ground and respond to whatever they've said that's infuriated me calmly after some time away from the computer. Don't be so quick to fly off the handle over what's said or done here. In short, you're not playing nicely in this mutual sandbox of ours and I'd strongly prefer not to have anyone take their toys away and go home because of your immature language. I don't expect to have the time to seriously work on this article for another week or two, so we may well bump heads then, but I expect you to respond to any issues that come up in a more reasoned manner than you've been exhibiting against Gunbirddriver.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you freaking kidding me? Hahahaha. I was simply saying that if Gunbirdbriver can provide any kind of answer to an aspect of this issue that he had never addressed – which is, "what about the once optimistic OKW" – then I'm ready to concede. How that ended up sounding insulting to your ears is beyond me. Right now, I'm nonplussed. This is actually funny. Why on hell would I want to launch personal attacks and "snide remarks" on Gunbirdbriver or anyone else here? (Such crap won't help anyone). Unless that is exactly what you wish me to do and your confirmation bias is now making you see things. EyeTruth (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Read this and tell me what the subtext is in your statement: "If your reasoning even remotely shows sound judgment" To me, and I suspect Gunbirddriver, this is insulting because it says that his judgement is impaired and that yours is superior. That may or may not be true in this particular case, but it's damn offensive. That's what people are complaining about not the factual statements or interpretive arguments that you make.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Holy moley hell. I will expound it: "What about the once optimistic OKW? What do you have to say about it? If what you have to say about it (your reasoning) even slightly (remotely or marginally) sounds good (shows sound judgment), then I will concede." How the heck did my statement get so misinterpreted? In fact, how in hell's name have my posts ended up being misinterpreted on here several times in just a few weeks? Do you guys just selectively read certain phrases and skip others? This is absolutely crazy, and funny at the same time. You guys better not be doing this intentionally. Trolling is not cool. It is true that I question a lot of things until I get every aspect clarified, and may often criticize deeply, but I'm not stupid to launch personal attacks. If there is a problem with an edit or an opinion, then it is the edit or the editor's opinion that has a problem and not the editor. If the claim is ridiculous, then it is just the claim that is ridiculous. (But who knows, it might have a good reason behind it if explained properly). If it is a mistake, then it is simply a mistake. I'm sure I've made this very clear on here. And when someone gives their opinion or an advice, I respond with questions to get a clearer picture. And Once I get answers, I adjust accordingly. And when others ask for answers, I give them what I've got. Now, can you guys please just stop making these things up. If I've hurt anyone on here, SORRY.
PS. It seems brandishing the say of the secondary sources I use with overconfidence in them makes me comes off as arrogant. And if you guys (specifically Dianna) think I've been arrogant in that sense, then SORRY about that too. I will temper that. But you guys know I've always been willing to hear what other secondary sources have to say as well. I may come off as a Glantz-fanboy (which I'm not) but I also know he is not perfect (no human is). So, once again, I'm always willing to hear what other sources have got to say.
Now, can we get back to these issues? What do you think, Sturmvogel 66. What about the once optimistic OKW? What do you have to say about showing their later pessimism? EyeTruth (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you tell that there is a difference between "shows sound judgement" or "sounds reasonable"? The first implies that the other guy lacks sound judgement and the second does not. I'm not asking to be funny, but some people cannot tell the difference, especially online where the facial expressions and other visual clues that provide a lot of context are lacking, and you may be one of them. I understand that you're willing to discuss these sorts of issues, but the subtext of your actual words implies that you're not and that you consider them to be your inferior, which upsets people. Even now, I'm not sure that you actually understand my point as you're kinda talking past the point that I'm trying to make here. Your words come across here as far more arrogant, insulting, and dismissive than you seem to realize.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I've read over those two several times now, and I can swear, I see absolutely no difference given their contexts. I would not feel insulted if someone used any of those to me. For me: sound judgement = good judgement = good reason = sound reason. But, I think I get your point. However, I do not consider anyone here inferior. That has to be one gigantic joke if I did, because I sure as hell know I've made my own fair share of mess on here. So please no one should get the feeling I'm trying to come off superior. If I scrutinize your opinion, then I'm simply scrutinizing your opinion. And it is absolutely not because I think I'm superior. (May be I should start using wiki-emoticons to help provide more context lol). EyeTruth (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I thought that that might be the case. I guess we'll just have to make allowances that you don't perceive subtext and you need to be more careful on picking your words when participating in an argument or heated discussion. As well as make allowances yourself for the fact that most of us aren't spending as much time on Wiki as you are and may not remember things as well as you do. Emoticons wouldn't hurt, but they lack the range or flexibility to take the sting out of some of your statements. I think that all of us involved here are going to need to make allowances for each other, one way or another, so try not to take things personally.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, EyeTruth, I will attempt to go through this with you. You ask: "What about the once optimistic OKW?"
OKW did not plan the operation, and their opinion, if expressed, is of little value. If you are looking for some written statement where OKW officials are critical of the intentions of Adolph Hitler, you are not understanding the context of the discussion. The first thing you have to realize is that the military leadership of the German army was seen with great suspicion by Adolph Hitler. The formation of OKW in 1938 was an effort by Hitler to undermine the authority of OKH. In the years prior to the conflict and throughout the conflict he found himself in forceful disagreement with the army leadership. Thus he managed to remove a succession of OKH leaders: Werner von Blomberg, Werner von Fritsch, Ludwig Beck ("his views were too much that of a Reichswehr general, and not enough of a Wehrmacht general" Murray, Williamson (1984). The Change in the European Balance of Power, 1938–1939 The Path to Ruin p. 182), Walther von Brauchitsch, and Franz Halder. At the time of Zitadelle, the Cheif of OKH was Werner von Fritsch, who though chosen by Hitler would also be removed. Meanwhile, OKW was staffed by Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl. If these men had an opposing opinion to Adolph Hitler, they were unlikely to express it, or make a written statement about it.
From the German Historical Museum website: [1]
Eine zum Teil von Hermann Göring geschickt inszenierte Doppelaffäre um Reichskriegsminister Werner von Blomberg und den Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres, Werner Freiherr von Fritsch, nahm Adolf Hitler Anfang Februar 1938 zum willkommenen Anlass, das Reichskriegsministerium aufzulösen und an dessen Stelle das Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) zu installieren. Hitler schuf sich mit der neuen höchsten Kommando- und Verwaltungsbehörde der Wehrmacht eine ihm direkt unterstellte und absolut gefügige Institution, die seine Kriegsvorbereitungen nunmehr widerspruchslos umsetzte. Bis zur deutschen Kapitulation am 8. Mai 1945 wurde das OKW von dem dafür wenig qualifizierten Wilhelm Keitel geleitet, den Hitler jedoch als charakterschwachen und willfährigen General 1938 bewusst in diese Position gehoben hatte, da von ihm kein Widerspruch zu erwarten war.
Dem OKW untergeordnet waren das Oberkommando der Heeres (OKH) unter dem neu ernannten Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres, Walther von Brauchitsch, sowie die Oberkommandos der Luftwaffe (OKL) unter Generalfeldmarschall Hermann Göring und der Kriegsmarine (OKM) unter Großadmiral Erich Raeder. Das OKW umfasste das Wehrmachtführungsamt (ab 1940: Wehrmachtführungsstab) unter General Alfred Jodl, das Amt Ausland/Abwehr unter Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, das Wehrwirtschafts- und Rüstungsamt unter General Georg Thomas (1890-1946) sowie das Allgemeine Wehrmachtsamt. Während des Zweiten Weltkriegs konnte das OKW, das für die Ausarbeitung der Kriegführung zuständig war, kaum als schlagkräftiger militärischer Arbeitsstab und effektives Führungsinstrument in Erscheinung treten. Zwar kontrollierte es die militärischen Planungen der drei Wehrmachtsteile und gab Richtlinien Hitlers an sie weiter, eine Kommandoberechtigung über OKH, OKL und OKM besaß das OKW allerdings nicht. Häufig verhinderten Kompetenzstreitigkeiten eine geordnete Koordination aller drei Wehrmachtsteile, und vor allem mit dem OKH trat das OKW bei Fragen der taktischen und operativen Kriegführung wiederholt in heftigen Widerstreit.
You can translate it and look into it, and no doubt arrive at your own conclusions, but basically it states that the formation of OKW was an effort by Hitler to undermine the authority of OKH, and move himself into a greater position of power and control over the military. It states that the people Hitler placed at the head of OKW were not men to oppose Hitler's directives. That is why people like Keitel and Jodl served in OKW throughout the war, and the leaders of OKH kept being removed under one pretense or another.
Hitler was a firm believer that the power of his will would make Germany victorious (Mannstein p. 276). No one at OKW argued against this notion, which of course was utter nonsense.
To sum up, the question "What about the once optomistic OKW?" is the wrong question. The planners of Zitadelle were in OKH, not OKW. As to OKH, the military command had doubts about Germany achieving a good result in the east from the start. By 1943 their hope was to acheive a stalemate in the east, as victory was unlikely.(Liddell Hart p. 211) A stalemate would allow Germany to bring resources back to the west to deal with the anticipated invasion by the Western Allies. Though hopeful that the operation would succeed, the leaders at OKH were not confident. Guderian's quote makes that clear. As to the commanders in the field, Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist for one had little hope of success,(Liddell Hart p. 212) Model as you noted earlier thought the operation should be called off, and Manstein had a better idea of how to use Germany's limited resources, but this was rejected out of hand by Hitler, who did not trust a defense conducted in a mobile fashion, and thought mobile operations too risky (Healy p. 27) OKW was comprised of "yes" men, who went along with Hitler, but that is neither here nor there, as their opinion is based on their position and support of Hitler, and does not represent a sober military assessment. Hitler was certain that the new weapons and his "iron will" would carry Germany to victory, but even Hitler was doubtful about the outcome.(Healy p. 50) The confidence he displayed was more a show and a projection of will than anything else.
This page is a talk page about the article, and not a general discussion page, so this sort of back and forth needs to be curtailed. Certainly by now I would hope you appreciate that there are other editors that are broadly read on these topics, and are reasonable and have reasonable judgment. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
So you're suggesting we remove everything about OKW because they are irrelevant to the campaign? Yes, all the postponements are irrelevant to this article . You're aware they're the ones who announced the postponements, right? You seem to also know very well that OKW was essentially Hitler's mouthpiece. So after all the points you made about that, you still think the pessimism harboured by "Hitler's instrument", which on 17 June collided with Hitler's trust in the prospects of Citadel, is irrelevant? Then you also think that their action that further underscored their pessimism is irrelevant? Keep in mind that politics has its place in war. Summarily brushing the key question off as just "a wrong question" is not an answer. EyeTruth (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Well I thought it was a pretty good answer. No, I am not suggesting that we remove everything about OKW, but now that you mention it that is not a bad idea. Can you point to where their input was relevent? What did OKW contribute? And roll your eyes all you want, but yes I am aware that OKW was Hitler's mouthpiece. In fact, I just went to pretty great lengths to point that out, and I even provided supporting documentation to prove the point. Inferring that some at OKW were pessimistic is irrelevent to the article. So is Jodl's orders to the propaganda ministry. What are these points supposed to add that we do not already know? From my perspective they add nothing, and when your article is 30 to 40 kilobytes over in size, material that does not add substantively to the article should be removed. I do keep in mind that politics has its place in war. Some would say that war is an extension of politics, and if Hitler had kept this in mind and continued to seek political solutions rather than placing so much faith that his will to win would see them through the day, then Germany would have been better served. All that said it is still the case that your question is the wrong question. I must confess it escapes me how you cannot comprehend how that could be a valid answer. In explanation, I would point out that to reach an answer to a problem you need to ask the right questions. The opinion of OKW, whether in fervent support or in expressing doubt, is irrelevent. You have pointed out above they were the mouthpiece of Hitler. Thus if Hitler has an upset stomach over Zitadelle, then OKW is going to have the freedom to express doubt on the issue. Reporting it does not add to our understanding of what happened. Okay? Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Basically, you're saying the correct question is whether OKW is relevant to this article when we already have Hitler in it, right? Yes, that is a legit question (no sarcasm). The only problem with it is that Hitler still had some confidence in the prospects of Citadel, but his OKW staff did not share that anymore by June. By that point, the instrument was beginning to question its operator's rationale. To sum it up, by June OKW's expectations no more represented Hitler's, and vice versa. Hitler harboured some concerns for Citadel; whereas, the OKW staff considered Citadel tantamount to suicide (they wanted it called off and didn't expect it to succeed anymore). Also keep in mind that excusing OKW's actions from this article will also mean deleting details of the postponement. I'm not sure how that will help this article. EyeTruth (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This particular part of the discussion stems from the article making the following assertions:
"Hitler and OKW (German Supreme Headquarters), were confident that the offensive would revitalize German strategic fortunes in the East."
followed four paragraphs later with
"Anticipating the possibility that the German offensive might fail, Alfred Jodl (OKW Operations Chief), instructed the armed forces propaganda office to portray Citadel as a limited counteroffensive."
The statements make it seem that OKW was central to the planning of the offensive, which you know was not the case, and the statements are in contradiction of one another. One cannot be supremely confident and then order the propaganda ministry to soft peddle the importance of the offensive in case it goes badly.
I think the article would be more clear if it portrayed the discussion between OKH and its field commanders with Hitler as to what to try to do with the forces available, followed by Hitler's insistence on an offensive action against the Kursk salient, followed by his insistence on going forward with the offensive while at the same time forcing repeated delays to await the Panther tank and other new weapons he believed would be necessary for victory. It should be noted that the delays eliminated any chance for operational surprise, without which there was little chance of making a deep penetration, a maneuver that Hitler was uncomfortable with and did not want anyway. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
That part of the discussion also stems from the OKW Operations Staff trying to get Citadel aborted on 17 June. OKW is in the article to give voice to the "political" perspective (although nominally, the military perspective). As I already stated before, the main problem is the current context of those two passages in the article. The first one applies to their expectations shortly after operational order No. 6 (OO#6) was announced; or more precisely, Clark's interpretation of their expectations after OO#6 from whatever primary (or secondary) sources he was using. The second one reflects the situation in June. A lot of rearrangement has occurred in the article, especially in that section, and nothing has since been done to correct the contexts of those passages (I already specified the context for the second one in the last edit).
And what about the postponements? Those were also issued by OKW. Nominally, OKW was the German High Command of the Wehrmacht, but in reality, it was simply Hitler's instrument. But even so, how can an article about a major German offensive make no mention of the German High Command of the Wehrmacht (OKW)? Well, you seemed to have suggest that having Hitler in the article already makes up for that. Normally, that will be correct. Except that in this case, at a certain point, Hitler's expectations differed from OKW's. Hence "Hitler" cannot substitute "OKW", or vice versa, in this article. This is akin to Office of the Secretary of Defense and the commander-in-chief having a major conflict of interest while preparing for a major US offensive operation, but instead we decide to mention only the Joint Chiefs of Staff and commander-in-chief in an article discussing that preparatory phase. (I know it's not the best analogy but I hope you get the idea). EyeTruth (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hitler committed to the offensive, not for military reasons but for political ones. He needed to show that Germany had not been eclipsed to strengthen the German position with a number of weaker allies (Romania, Italy, Finland) whom he did not want to defect, and with Turkey whom Hitler was hoping would join the Axis powers.(Healy p. 50, Manstein p. 446) Once committed to it in March he moved steadfastly forward towards it.(Healy p. 44 and p. 86) OKW does not provide a political perspective, as it was an instrument to undermine OKH and place more power in the hands of Hitler. As the war moved forward Hitler was less and less willing to trust the judgment of his officer corps, (Healy p. 109) I do not suggest that OKW was synonomous with Hitler, but I do suggest that it is essentially irrelevant to the discussion of the battle. If the article mentioned nothing of OKW that would be fine with me. I would not, however, be fine with failing to mention OKH. Postponements were largely due to the effort to build up the panzer forces, and particularly on Hitler's insistence on waiting for the Panther tank to be available at the front.(Healy p. 85) It matters little who announced the delays. That Hitler and members of OKW had differences of opinion and that the differences were expressed by OKW is noteworthy for an article on OKW, but is not essential here. OKW was not planning the offensive and was never a source of serious opposition to Hitler's plans. It was OKH which organized the planning and coordinated logistical support, without which one could not implement the orders. That being said I do not see how OKW would be important to mention here.Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You said OKW “was an instrument to undermine OKH and place more power in the hands of Hitler.” That is war-politics in quote. In that sense, OKW does provide some political perspective.
OK, let us consolidate how much we've clarified so far:
We both know that OKH handled the planning and most of the preparation for Citadel. We both know that OKW nominally had "all the power" as the German High Command of the Wehrmacht, but in reality, it had limited control over OKH. We both know that OKW, for the most part, was Hitler's tool. We both know that Hitler, in this case, cannot be synonymous with OKW; at least, not in June 1943. We also both know that by June the expectations of the OKW Operations Staff for Citadel differed significantly from Hitler's. We both know that OKH must be mentioned in the article. But we still can't agree on whether OKW has a place in this article or not. Your reason being that you still think OKW is "essentially irrelevant to" the article because they were "not planning the offensive"; whereas, my reason is that a major conflict of interest during the preparatory phase of the offensive between the German High Command of the Wehrmacht (OKW) and the commander-in-chief is worth mentioning in the article, especially because the former was normally a puppet of the later.
What do you think? I think our understanding of the dispute is clear but our opinions of what is important still differ. Considering that the paragraph in question is about 35 words long and only a fraction of a KB (of readable prose), I think the information it has is important enough to occupy that small space. What do others who have recently posted on this talkpage think? User:RASAM, User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Diannaa, User:Herostratus, User:Paul Siebert (if they don't mind sparing some time to post their thoughts on this). EyeTruth (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
It is the meandering quality of the article that I find troubling. The tendency to wander off into things that do not matter. The wandering actually makes it harder for the article to communicate what happened and why. As editors we need to be willing to cut away things that are of little value. The size is not as important as the fact that it does not really tell us anything that we do not already know. A reader will only commit so much time to reading the article, and the reader's time should not be spent on irrelevancies. The problem with article length is not that it is outside the wikipedia guideline, but that the reader will not get through it. The guideline is there for the purpose of aiding the reader. An article that is too large cannot afford the luxury of documenting things and explaining things that are of a periperal nature. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly! I also think there are some things of little value that needs to go (e.g. Guderian's convo with Hitler can simply be summarized in a sentence or exported into an endnote). But I'm certain the paragraph regarding OKW presents a very important piece of information, as it strongly highlights the contention over the prospects of Citadel among the senior officer cadre and the transformation of these opinions over time. As for the article size, once Sturmvogel 66 and others are ready, we can start exporting the remaining stuff as agreed in the talkpage subsections above. My guesstimation is that by the time everything is cleaned up and polished, we will have the article at 50-60 KB. EyeTruth (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Which leads me to another problem as well. The paragraph in German plans that leads with Zeitzler reads in part:
Hitler, acknowledging both Zeitzler's plan and Model's objections as worthy of consideration, presented both proposals at a conference of senior officers held 3–4 May. Opinions were divided between three main options: an immediate offensive, a delayed offensive to enable better preparation, and a complete cancellation of the Citadel offensive for a defensive operation or a radically revised offensive operation. Manstein, Model, and Heinz Guderian, among others, favoured the third option. Hans Jeschonnek (Chief of the Luftwaffe General Staff) argued for the first option, which was also supported by several others. Kluge and some others strongly argued for the second option. Wilhelm Keitel (Chief of Staff at OKW) later insisted that any of the options besides the third would suffice. The conference ended without reaching a decision, but Citadel was not aborted.
Do we really mean to give the impression that Hitler "pitched" ideas before the General Staff, and though a discussion ensued he was unable to bring them to a consensus? That is not how things were run in Germany in 1943. I should remove the whole thing, but if we were to decide to retain it we would need to be clear that Hitler allowed a discussion but no one was able to dissuade him from going forward with Zitadelle, which would take place with the new weapons, whenever they were ready. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hitler actually pitched the two ideas as per Glantz's interpretation of Guderian's Panzer Leader and Manstein's Lost Victories. This was because Hitler, on that day, was equivocal about Citadel. This is why there was a citation note with the citation which clarified that the paragraph was mostly based on those two accounts. Somehow that got misplaced during the recent edits, but it's no big deal anyways. BTW, I'm curious: are you doubting it based on your hunch? Or based on some solid info from another source? EyeTruth (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hitler did not "pitch" ideas to a staff to find consensus. There was a singularity in the German command structure that obviated the need to find consensus. The article should not suggest anything else. Officers tried to reason with Hitler, they argued with Hitler, at times there was shouting, but it was Hitler that made the decisions, and the officers had to follow them. In 1940 Hitler sent out liason officers to the field commanders to report back if the commander did not follow his direction of halting the offensive. Officers like Thoma, Rommel and Guderian did as they were directed, even though they saw their chance for success against England in what could be a long war slipping away. Same with the "Not one step back" orders in Russia. If an officer withdrew from an untenable position he was courtmartialed, or worse. Manstein spent the last year of the war unemployed because he differed in opinion with Hitler. Such an atmosphere does not lend itself to open discussion and robust debate. The final sentence in the paragraph is the best one. "Citadel was not aborted." Gee, I wonder why? Glantz may be good at fleshing out the Soviet side of the conflict, but his understanding of the inner workings of the Wehrmacht is poor. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Ummh, I wouldn't say Glantz's understanding of the inner workings of the Wehrmacht is poor. The dude knows his stuff... very well. I also think your exposition above has some truth in it, but it may not be applicable to the conference on 3 May. This is how Glantz described the Munich conference in May (Glantz 2004 [1999], p. 1–3): First of all, the narration points to endnotes, clarifying that the "following account is based primarily" on Guderian's and Manstein's memoirs. It narrates how before the conference, Model presented his objections to the Citadel plan and how Hitler was so impressed by it that he decided to pit it against Zeitzler's plan during the conference. Then it casts a brief context on the whole personal conflict between Kluge, Model and Guderian, and how that further polarized their opinions of Citadel. Then it goes on about the various opinions presented by the attendees of the conference (this is the part presented in this article). Then it points out that by the end of the conference Hitler was simply not able to arrive at a decision. But then, it subsequently mentions that the Citadel offensive was not aborted. In another work (Glantz 2013 [1990], p. 183), he clarifies that the postponement to 12 June came three days after the conference. I see absolutely no reason not to believe Glantz's narration. It makes complete sense, especially given that Hitler is certainly not omniscient and is therefore liable to doubt and anxiety. I'm not surprised at all to hear that Hitler was in doubt of which idea he preferred, or that it took him some more hours to finally reach some kind of decision. And hey, I'm still curious: are you questioning this instance of Hitler's indecisiveness based on your hunch? Or is there any particular info from another source that directly casts doubt on Glantz's narration of the May conference? Because I want to make sure we are not exhausting ourselves on some original idea again. EyeTruth (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you realize that this response of yours is insulting? And this is not a comment that is open to discussion. No need for you to go off and argue that the above response is not insulting. It is insulting, and as I am the receipient I am in perfect position to notify you that I am insulted. Be that as it may, I will respond to your questions further when I have more time - perhaps later tonight. I am late for a meeting. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh please. So when I declare my disinterest in exhaustively discussing original ideas again, that becomes insulting. There is really no other way to word it, and it's polite as it could ever be. Don't try to pull "I've-been-insulted card" on a sentence that is clearly not malicious.
How about when I made a grammatical mistake in the article and your best reply to my apology for it was: "the root of the problem is that you are not entirely comfortable working in English." Or when you tried to accuse me of copyright violation on completely false basis: "EyeTruth, editors are not to be lifting phrases from the source." Yeah, those instances were very very polite. Actually, I didn't find them insulting (by my standards). But, come on, those were not polite. Those would certainly be considered insulting if I were to use them for you. This is becoming all too hypocritical. There are times I may terribly misword my intentions but I don't think this is one them. What you've read above, in the first paragraph of this post, is indeed my intention. I seriously want no part in another debate of an original idea versus a cited one. If you had answered that it was just your hunch, I would have actually pulled out completely from this discussion. EyeTruth (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I did not mean to give you the impression I care, I am just pointing out to you that your response was insulting, just so that you might gain some insight. It was a comment not of criticism, but of an educational nature. Of course, you missed the intention, which makes the same point. I knew when I wrote it that you did not perceive your response to be insulting, just as I knew that you would not gain any further insight from my pointing it out. To clarify for you, your response above is insulting not because you "declare disinterest in exhaustively discussing original ideas", but because it assumes superiority, it claims there was only "some truth" to what I was saying, it accuses me of making things up, it repeats what you have previously said, you then pat yourself on the back for saying it, you then go on to note that the source you are using is secondary to two primary sources, one of which I have been using over and over again in this discussion and in the article. It is a surprising response in its utter lack of insight. The fact that you miss the fact that it is insulting is the main point being made. Now let us move on to the main chance: you are wondering why I would say what I did, and you ask this despite the fact that you cannot have missed by now that I have read multiple sources on this topic. Okay, well the primary source that Glantz refers to is Manstein. Here is what Manstein had to say on the issue:
Manstein p. 447
"At the beginning of May, however, Hitler decided - against the advice of two army group commanders - to postpone 'Citadel' till June, by which time, he hoped, our armoured divisions would be stronger still after being fitted out with new tanks. He stuck to this decision even after it was pointed out to him that the unfavorable events in Tunisia could mean that if 'Citadele' were put off any longer there would be a danger of its coinciding with an enemy landing on the Continent. Nor would he recognize that the longer one waited the more armour the Russians would have - particularly as their output undoubtedly exceeded that of Germany. As a result of delays in the delivery of our own new tanks, the Army Group was not ultimatley able to move off on 'Citadele' until the beginning of July, by which time the essential idea of the 'forehand' blow was lost. The whole idea had been to attack before the enemy had replenished his forces and got over the reverses of winter. At the same time it was certain that the longer we took to launch the operation, the greater must be the threat to both those of Army Group South's armies in the Donetz-Mius salient which had had to hand over all their available forces, and most of all, to the Orel bulge as the jumping off base of Army Group Center's Ninth Army.
Yep. So Glantz's narration is in direct conflict with one of the two primary sources he is citing. It is clear from Manstein's account that Hitler was not swayed by the input of his Army Group commanders, and that is supported by what did in fact happen. That is to say, that the conference held was not for Hitler to try to get his commanders to reach a consensus. Consensus building was not important to Hitler, and that is not original research, it is a fact that history has born out.
Here is Glantz on the German command from The Battle of Kursk, p. 2:
"At Munich Hitler presented both Zeitzler's plan and Model's objection to the plan. His audience, who had learned to read the dictators moods, recognized that he was impressed with Model's arguments. Field Marshal von Manstein shared these misgivings; he believed that the Germans should have attacked in April before their opponents had recovered from the defeats of last spring.(Comment: this is pretty close to correct, though his comment on reading Hitler's moods is unsupportable)Yet as in so many conferences during the war von Manstein heistated to make his case. In private he was scathingly critical of German strategy, but he was so overawed by Hitler's personality and intuition that he often stumbled when talking to the dictator.(Comment: utter nonsense).
It is clear that Glantz is not writing a scholarly work, but rather is writing in a narrative style that he hopes will be interesting to read. Thus he is taking allowances with events and personalities to suite his story telling. Manstein did not start interacting with Hitler directly until the crisis at Stalingrad when he was made commander of Army Group Don, so Glantz is referring to a track record that did not exist at the time.(Manstein p. 274) Furthermore, Manstein was extremely confrontational with Hitler, and people in the inner circle were surprised at how outspoken Manstein was. Said Graf von Kielmansegg "no one picked arguments with Hitler like Manstein." Another staffer recalled that after a praticularly fractious conference between Hitler and Manstein, Manstein commented "My God, the man is an idiot." (Healy p. 27) That was how Manstein ended up losing his command. Not from incompetence, but because he challenged Hitler's thick stupidity in fighting to the last man. In trying to hold ground that was not valuable, he lost men and materiel which were irreplaceable, and this happened over and over again, till there was nothing much left to fight with. So this Glantz description of Manstein's "awe" around Hitler is simply made up.
In making these arguments I am pointing out what should be obvious. Arguing on these lines is akin to making the case that though Hitler was made Chancellor of Germany, within a year and a half he assumed the position of a dictator, even though such a step was forbidden by the laws of Germany. Yes, really!
For pete's sake!! Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

OMFG ! This is what I've been talking about. Why did you have to troll me for so long before pulling this out XD. Now we can have a good discussion. I believe you, every single thing you've pointed out about Manstein's side of the story. But there is one issue. What if the other extra information about Manstein's personality came from Guderian or elsewhere? (Keep in mind that "primarily based on" doesn't equal to "entirely based on"). OK, narrative style or not, I see no reason why Glantz (as respected as he is :p) would intentionally distort stuff. Ok, I understand that he may take some leisure in his wording (flowery language and stuff like that) but going too far as to alter the key message, I don't know man. Aight, I don't know why Glantz will misrepresent Manstein's attitude during the conference. I've got no serious comment on that one. Besides, I normally would never include peripheral stuff like that in an article.

But as for Hitler's indecisiveness at the end of the conference, there is nothing you've mentioned that suggests otherwise. A Glantz-mistake is possible but this is not one of it. Not when he repeats the same conclusion of Hitler reaching no decision by the end of the conference in Glantz (2013 [1990]). (And I'm sure if I dig into the other books I will find more of it). In page 447 of the cited edition of Manstein's memoir you presented, Manstein simply pointed out that "at the beginning of May" Hitler made his decision. Whereas Glantz actually gives us the details of how that came about. Hitler made his decision 6/7 May. That perfectly qualifies as the beginning of May. So we actually have an agreement of two sources here instead of a contradiction. There is absolutely nothing that Manstein says in the rest of the posted portion of page 447 that contradicts Glantz. Manstein claims that once Hitler postponed it to June nothing could talk him out of it. Glantz also says the same thing (Glantz (2004[1999], p. 55). In fact, Glantz adds that the "criticism had the unintended effect of strengthening [Hitler's] resolve". So in the end, I can't see the source that claimed Hitler made up his mind at the end of that pivotal conference.

Sorry about hurting you with the phrase "some truth", it was almost inevitable. You didn't provide the sources your opinion was based on, even on request. So even though I knew all of it could not be false, I couldn't tell if all of it were valid or just speculative inference. I'm not omniscient. And it had nothing to do with superiority. There was no need to use it to pull the "I've-been-insulted" card. Try to imagine yourself outside of your own shoes, and decide if that was an insult or not. And also good job at making me waste 20 mins to scavenge legitimate counter-instances, which were apparently not needed :p XD. EyeTruth (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Guderian, Panzer Leader, p. 307, claims that Hitler had not made up his mind by the end of the conference. He also says that Manstein said that success now was doubtful and he'd need two full-strength infantry divisions to carry it out. Hitler said that wasn't possible and repeated his question, "but unfortunately received no clear answer." He confirms that no decision had been made when he met with Hitler on 10 May, (p. 308) and Guderian subsequently tried to talk him out of attacking at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmn. Now, that's even more interesting. So even though OKW went on to postpone the launch date to 12 June, Hitler had not completely sealed his mind. I had concluded earlier that Hitler made up his mind on 6/7 May, but apparently OKW's action that day doesn't translate to Hitler's resoluteness. EyeTruth (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Gentlemen, would Hitler have accepted going on the strategic defensive in the east, when he had a number of powerful formations at his disposal which had recently proved their worth in the Battle of Kharkov? We know he was not willing to take an initial defensive stance to go over onto the offensive, as this was suggested both by Mantsein and later by Model, and he had no interest in it whatsoever. Was there another region in the east where he could have used his forces to go on the offensive? Despite his procastination, which was his way throughout the war, was there ever any other option for the Ostheer that Hitler would seriously consider? This is not just conjecture. The whole thing reminds me of Midway in some ways. The wheels were set in motion, and the best force available was committed to an unwinnable battle. Though the warning signs were there, no attempt was made from high command to change course to another direction. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Humans are not robots. Decisions are not always made as simple as the press of a button. And even after making a decision, the mind can be fickle thing at times. And Hitler is human, unless we're going into all those conspiracy BS. EyeTruth (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
That was just my attempt at trying to not make this all about sources vs. sources, which is normally my preference since sometimes I get to expand my knowledge through it. EyeTruth (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Engvar

This article was started in British English. At the moment I can't help noticing it contains both variants. It needs to stick to one. I suggest, based on WP:RETAIN, that it should be British English. What do others think? --John (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My preference would be British English, but either way is fine with me. You're right though, the main thing is the style should be made consistent throughout. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I have cleaned this up. Let's keep it in British English unless there is a reason to change. --John (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Actual battle strength of two sides?

Why are some of you guys still reverting my edits, although it was a fact that the Soviets have more than 2.5 million men throughout the battle? Some of you who revert back my edits about actual troops of both sides throughout the battle are editing it back, especially that it reads legit that the Soviets have only 1.9 million men, although the fact that the Soviets have 2.5 million and 900k+ Germans throughout the battle by Glantz says the truth? Some of you who revert back my edits may be editing the actual troop strength in one phase of the battle, not all of its phases, including the Soviet offensive phase. Why? Somebody answer my question. NOW!

Who are you to ask anything of us? Keep a civil tongue in your head, sign your posts, and we can discuss whatever it is that has you so upset. Yelling at people will solve nothing, so save your energy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Choy4311. The reason is because your edits are going to mean more {citation needed} tags. Also you misplaced some figures by moving them from "Operation Citadel" to "Battle of Kursk". The notes on those figures already provide the appropriate context for a reader. Although you went about it in the worst way possible, you actually have a good point that the strength figures are overgeneralized. After all, a very specific figure has its specific context (date, formations, etc). However, the fix you applied only made things worse. Maybe you can help by adding context supported by secondary source (or primary sources, if you can) to the already existing figures. EyeTruth (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

So, you say that I revert my edit about the actual troop strength of two sides throughout the battle and put [citation needed] in it instead of those sources I have put so on?

Sign your post. The new figures you added had no citations. All the figures currently in the info box are cited, save one or two. The ones you shuffled around only ended in the wrong place. Hope I'm making sense. EyeTruth (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Germans were within 36 hours of winning the battle Kursk when they were told directly by Adolph Hitler to hold in place and fight to the last man. After that last interference by Hitler all hope of defeating the Russians was gone. For the rest of the war Germany was fighting a defensive war in the east that they were going to lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Kursk/Archive_5&oldid=569153601"