Talk:Battle of Nikolayevka

Nikolayevka "doesn't exist"

In Italy we call it "battle of Nikolayevka" because the place was named in that way on our military maps. Actually the village has been absorbed in time by the nearby city of Livenka (50° 27' 19 N, 38° 17' 32 E). You'll find Panoramio photos (not mine) by an Italian user as further proof of what I'm writing.

--Basil II (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Title

Speaking of the article's title, is "battle of Nikolayevka" the name under which the battle is known in English? All of the sources are in Italian, and I can't check the book because I don't access to it. The reason for my asking is that even today there are about 200 places in Russia called "Nikolayevka", and there were undoubtedly many more in the 1940s. It just seems as an extremely ambiguous and meaningless name to me, and if it's not one that's used in English, perhaps changing it to something more descriptive would be of help?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Do not change the article! The battle is one of the most famous in Italy and changing it's name (under which it is universally known and remembered here) is unacceptable! It is as if you would like to change Battle of Bunker Hill into Battle near Boston - i.e. something which is unacceptable to every American and historically not acceptable too. --noclador (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't panic, I'm not planning to change anything; I'm merely inquiring whether the present title is the name under which this battle is known in English. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

how would a Californian newspaper know what happened to Italian troops on the Eastern Front?!

It is quite obvious that the Californian newspaper Fresno Bee Republican, on March 3, 1943 carried out a story that was quite positive about the Italian Alpini. If in doubt check: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=LAUDS+ALPINE&btnG=Search+Archives&as_ldate=1943&as_hdate=1943 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioBerlin (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

false statement

"the only force that can regard itself as undefeated on Russian soil is the Italian Alpini corps"

this is a well known urban legend. There is no reference to this in Russian sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.37.50.172 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

true! thanks for pointing out that this statement was urban myth was still in the article! I removed it now; noclador (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no official bulletin about that but it's a matter of fact that "the only force that can regard itself as undefeated on Russian soil is the Italian Alpini corps". In fact Ailpini were undefeated in both: the defense against superior forces and the encircling soviets. No battles were lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.116.193 (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

that is original research. please read: Wikipedia:No original research, noclador (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

??? that is a matter of fact, if you have evidences against please provide them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.85.62 (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

a matter of fact?? says who? you understand something wrong here: it is you who hast to prove that it is so! However Radio Berlin in 1943 is NOT a valid source in any way! noclador (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry in this article are mentioned some references. Did you read them? For example from the Rigoni's book you can learn that the alpini held the line despite the overwhelming attacking forces and left the trenches only when they got the order to retreat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.85.62 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote large parts of this article [1]! and to make you remember your own socketpuppetry: [2], [3], [4], [5],... so: you will stop now adding your usual nonsense that, what Radio Berlin said 1943 is a reliable source for a reputable encyclopedia, or I will have the article semi-protected. Your choice Messe. noclador (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you are switching topic from undefeated alpini to Radio Berlin. Radio Berlin is a source like Radio London or Radio Moscow. Obviously all sources are biased. Do you have a list of sources that should be considered or not? The main point, however, is to keep this http://www.ana.it/uploads/Bollettino630.pdf source about the myth of Soviet War Bulletin.

Last but least please stop accusing me to be a sock-puppet otherwise I could accuse you being an idiot

1) the Alpini units were badly mauled by the Soviet forces and only remnants made it out of the attempted Soviet encirclement. That is a crushing defeat! The Alpini held the line because the Soviet forces broke through to the north and south of them and tried to encircle the Alpini Corps. The Alpini made it out of the Soviet trap, but to speak of "undefeated" is wrong- losses of over 80% can hardly be described as "undefeated".

2) Radio Berlin in 1943 was a Nazi propaganda station; it is absolutely pro-NS-regime POV and coincidently it was (and obviously is still) the favorite source of Generalmesse and co. noclador (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

a) If you have major concerns about radio Berlin feel free to remove the text. However you should know that radio London was POV as well.

b) Again what I really care is this http://www.ana.it/uploads/Bollettino630.pdf because demystifies the urban legend of a soviet war bulletin favorable to Italians

c) Alpini were undefeated because never lost. However if you know about military you may know the Pyrrhic victories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.85.62 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Even the idea of using Radio Berlin as a source is extremely bad sourcing - have a look at Nazi propaganda; Radio Berlin did not have a POV, Radio Berlin was outright lying and twisting the truth on a daily basis. As a source it is therefore in NO was acceptable!

a Pyrrhic victory means that you actually won the battle but at great cost; however it was the Soviets who won this battle: they attacked, broke the front lines, pushed the Axis forces 200km back, mauled the Alpinis and were still in strength to renew their attack after a short lull in the fighting. The Aplini were undefeated insofar as the Soviets never intended to attack them, but to encircle them and then mop them up; that part of the Alpini corps broke through this encirclement proves the courage and determination, but does not make their flight westwards a victory - not even a Pyrrhic one. noclador (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot problems

I have added data and maps from reliable sources, that a BOT seems to cancel probably by mistake. Hope the BOT-error will not show up again.--LoanP8 (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have difficulties adding a reliable map ( http://i12.tinypic.com/2jd3jtg.jpg ), because of a BOT. If somebody can help....please insert the map in the article. Thanks. --LoanP8 (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have found the way to bypass the BOT! Here it is:--LoanP8 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How is this a tactical Axis victory?

Hey guys. No insult intended to Russains or Germans or Italians but how is this an axis victory? At most it's a phyrric victory/delaying action. But Stalingrad was encircled and this unit nearly destroyed... 79.136.64.95 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC) That's why it's a 'tactical' victory and not a strategic victory --2A02:2028:2C1:B5C1:304E:85B2:C6DB:9026 (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and Rommel won Alamein's battle because He managed to flee Egypt --Morenohijazo (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the most ignorant comments I've ever read. The situation was completely different. At Alamein the Axis were supposed to hold their positions for further advance in the future, instead they were forced to retreat and lost more than half their force in the process, so they were defeated. At Nikolayevka the Axis forces were already retreating and encircled during Operation Little Saturn, and they managed to break out of the encirclement and save part of their force. Hence the tactical victory.--188.216.113.20 (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

oh, my dear... Aren't you a bit nervous? I don't insult you, I think. But Rommel started his withdrawal on November 3th, 1941. For you, I suposse it's a decisive German victory until Mars 1943, because Afrika Korps flees to Tunisia. --Morenohijazo (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That's just stupid and biased. In the Battle of Turtucaia, in World War 1, the Romanian troops were encircled and defeated, but 4000 troops managed to break from the encirclement and thus that force was saved, 4,000 troops out of 39,000, quite a bit better than the Italians here, who saved 4,000 troops out of 40,000. Yet, that was in no way a Romanian victory of any sorts, they were routed and pushed back, just like the Italians here. You have absolutely no common sense if you claim as a tactical victor the one who suffered 30 times more casualties against an enemy nearly 7 times less numerous! They were CRUSHED! A clear and shameful defeat that for some reason you and some others try to brush up and forcefully make it into a victory. This is clear ass-kissing to me. I know about ass-kissing the Germans, but ass-kissing the Italians? Really? They were the lamest! Even the Romanians were better fighters than them! A solid proof of that is that out of the 43 foreigners that were awarded the Knight's Cross, 18 are Romanians and only 9 are Italians. That and the fact that, at their worst, Romanians in WW2 didn't score more than 3 times their casualties. The Italians even managed to score over 26 times more casualties, as seen here.

Ah, the Italian invasion of France... "On June 10, 1940, Italy formally declared war on Britain and France [...] In the foreign ministry sardonic comparisons were drawn between Mussolini and the traditional circus clown who rolled up the mats after the acrobats completed their performance and demanded that the audience applaud him". Yes, it's Irving, but, you know the thing about Agamenon ant its swinehwerd... --Morenohijazo (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It's the same thing in ALL the fronts!! France 1940, Greece/Albania 1940, North Africa, URSS 1941-43... Italians reained UNDEFEATED because Enemy don't reached them!! Only in East Africa were defeated... because the Regia Marina couldn't help them to escape!! --Morenohijazo (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That the Italians saved 4,000 troops out of 40,000 is pure fantasy on your side, my dear ignorant and prejudiced friend. The Italian Alpini Corps got 21,000 men ouf of the pocket, including 7,500 wounded or frostbitten, not 4,000. This is the first point; now look at the second point: the figure of 6,000 Soviet forces, and 1,000 dead and wounded, in this page, is entirely unsourced, so we can discuss about its reliability. And I'm not even mentioning that the Soviets were combat ready and had tanks, while the Italians had nearly no tanks and just a few thousands men in fighting condition, the rest being a mob of frostbitten and exhausted men whom often had no ammunitions left. Just to reply about the Italians being "the lamest"; the numbers of German awards does not mean anything. Talking about casualties ratio? What about Petrikowka, where ratio between Italian and Soviet casualties was 1:34? By your "reasoning", I'd say Soviets were really the lamest! In 1941 they were CRUSHED! They surrendered by the hundreds of thousands! And they did not manage to win a single battle with balanced odds! They only became "brave" when Stalin put somebody behind them to shoot anyone who retreated or surrendered! Last point, I will put it in a very simple way so that you can understand despite your evidently limited difficulties in understanding:

Soviet objective: hold Nikolayewka, trap the Corpo d'Armata Alpino and annihilate it - failed.

Italian objective: take Nikolayewka - succeeded; get the Corpo d'Armata Alpino out of the pocket - partly succeeded.

Sorry mate, you can just keep trying in your pathetic attempt to modify history, I will just keep this page under observation and mercilessly revert any of your biased modifications.--2.35.63.14 (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It was the same with the Romanians at Stalingrad! Most of the people were frostbitten and had only a handful of active tanks! Yet you don't call that a victory, right? Or would you, if they were FREAKING ITALIANS?! "The number of German awards means nothing", yeah, would you hypocritical piece of fecal matter say the same if most foreigners would be FREAKING ITALIANS?! Stop sugar-coating a CLEAR DEFEAT just to ass-kiss one of the LAMEST, most PARASITICAL countries in the whole war! Why, just WHY would ANYONE even THINK of ONE reason to ass-kiss the ITALIANS?! Also, I would watch my mouth before declaring any sort of war to a Romanian! You forgot about Mărășești?

...reverted. We can go on endlessly. This is no ass-kissing, this is history. I suggest that you stop being a troll, take your medicines, and possibly get a life. G'day.--2.35.63.14 (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted again. Can you at least have the common sense to call it an Axis victory? Italy was helped by Germany and Hungary, and you call it "Italian". During the siege of Odessa, Romania was helped only by Germany, yet for some reason it cannot be called Romanian. That ain't fair. By the way, I suggest you should get a life and stop brown-nosing Italy. Because I won't stop. You want a war? You got a war! =_=

Axis victory, of course.--2.35.63.14 (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I calmed down now..I can accept this, even though I still don't see how it was a victory...I got mad because, every time we had some slight help in a battle, we have to share the victory with our ally at that moment. Battle of Oituz and Mărăști, WW1, no Russian commander and slight Russian help overall, still Allied victory. They just won't allow me to replace "Allied" with "Romanian". However, when the situation is the opposite, we are left out! Like in the Siege of Budapest, I had to change it from "Soviet Victory" to "Soviet Romanian victory", because that's what it was! This tendency of brushing the participation of "lesser" countries and emphasize the one of the "big" ones, regardless of their actual contribution, counts as ass-kissing to me. Or even worse, racism. Like when after several other countries joined the "Tripartite" Pact, it was still called "tripartite", even though it was blatantly obvious that more countries were involved. Seriously, with this kind of attitude towards their allies, no wonder that the Axis lost!..

Now, what about changing Siege of Odessa back to "Axis victory" instead of "Romanian victory", if the same measure is to be applied?

Recent edit

I condensed the article significantly to remove dubious claims, myths, and POV language, as no sources have been provided since 2013. Please let me know of any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Strength?

How many axis soldiers? In the infobox:8.000 — 9.000. In the article "The 40,000-strong mass of stragglers—Alpini and Italians from other commands, plus German and Hungarian Hussars (Light Cavalry)". Nothing is known about the Soviet side:6.000 (citation needed). Maja33 NL (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The article offers no sources whatsoever, and bears little resemblance to the few verifiable facts.

"Needs additional citations" is a gross understatement, since it has none. And almost everything I could find about this supposed heroic battle fit into three categories:
1) Basically copied from this page. (I recommend adding -"as a small part of the larger Battle of Stalingrad" from the lede to your search terms, unless you just want to be darkly amused by how many there are.)
2) Forum talk, widely contradictory, and/or bare claims with no sourcing.
3) world-war-2.wikia.org, which actually makes a decent attempt at looking reputable by apparently listing eight unique sources. The problem is, only three make any actual assertions about the battle. Those assertions fall into:

a) hagiography

i. https://web.archive.org/web/20170123051246/http://www.quikmaneuvers.com/italian_army_blood.html has to be seen to be believed.

ii. the battle was an Italian "victory", sourced to a book published in Italy and dedicated to proving the Italians were great soldiers badly used by the Germans

b) gross abuse of source ("thousands escaped" in the source becomes all 40,000 of them escaping in the article), and/or

c) vague heroic anecdotes.

The one solid source I could find on it appears to strongly infer that while a battle/retreat did occur, the version of it being told in this article and elsewhere is just a thinly-fabricated heroic myth - mostly created by the alleged heroes. The Italian War on the Eastern Front.

This appears to be a full-blown urban legend - i.e. an entertaining story that's only "true" because a lot of people are emotionally attached to it, so they keep repeating it. 2603:3023:306:2C00:1422:EC21:364C:DC19 (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"The Italian War on the Eastern Front, 1941–1943: Operations, Myths and Memories". Thank you for the source.Maja33 NL (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I redirected the page to Operation Uranus in this edit. I cleaned up the article a while ago, but the issues appear to be still on-going. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Source: The Italian War on the Eastern Front

I attempted to look for sources, and was able to find this one: The Italian War on the Eastern Front, 1941–1943 Operations, Myths and Memories by Bastian Matteo Scianna (2019). The event is described as part of the mythology around the Italian Army in the German-Soviet war, and was apparently a minor engagement, with one battalion-strength unit and several companies on the Italian side. I've not located other sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The battle of Nikolayevka is back. . . It could be a good article if we also described the place of this battle in post-war Italian memory/myth etc. Has anybody The Italian War on the Eastern Front, 1941–1943 Operations, Myths and Memories?

Some points:

- the Italian article is worst than this one;

- Fyodor Kuznetsov was, at that time, the commanding officer of the Academy of General Staff;

- no source for Soviet casualties;

- the battle was between Axis forces and the 48th Guards Rifle Division. I put the divisional commander in the infobox. Maja33 NL (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

False edit to infobox needs to be undone

I personally don't have any idea how to undo it without bollocksing up the infobox, but this edit is false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Nikolayevka&diff=1041069465&oldid=1015930775
As both the original editor and a quick Googletranslate of the source can tell you, the original figures are correct and are specific to this "battle". 2603:3023:81D:100:15C9:6366:2CE6:1809 (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maja33 NL (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)