Talk:Battle of Krasny Bor

German victory?

From what I read here on this article, the Soviets achieved their mission objectives and the Germans (well, Spaniards really) failed to prevent the Soviets from achieving their mission. Casualties should not have to do with victory, unless it is a really pyrrhic one. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You have my full concurrence in the sense that objectives and not casualties determine a victory. What I'm not sure about is what the Soviet objectives were and how much of them they actually achieved (I didn't write the article, mind you)–the introduction seems to imply that the Soviets captured a piece of strategically useful ground, but I have trouble reconciling this with the geography I've seen elsewhere. It looks to me from this map that the 250. Division was positioned astride the Moscow–Leningrad highway, not parallel to it. The Russians by February 13 seemed to want to throw the 250th across the Izhora; notice the Spanish managed to cling to the east bank. At any rate, since the Wehrmacht in the end recaptures the town and seems to still be blocking both rail and highway, I'm having trouble figuring out how that leaves "the main road to Moscow" in Russian hands. But anyway much of what I've seen on the Web, while vague, seemed to imply some manner of German victory. Albrecht 03:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. It would be best if someone with more expertise in this battle (not me definitely :p ) cleaned it up a bit. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am having some problems here

At the moment this article seems pretty much an unmitigated praise for the Spanish division. Can we please see some sources on the following:

a) how many Soviet infantry actually attacked in the Spanish sector. I am almost certain the real number is far lower than the 44,000 claimed in the page.

b) how the 5,900 Spanish are arrived at? Is that the strength of the division that day? If so, which strength? Iststärke, Grabenstärke? Unfortunately the article linked on Feldgrau is not giving this information.

c) What were the other elements of the Spanish division doing during the battle?

Someone who can add info from the Soviet side needs to have a look at this article. The websites provided as links do not do this. I am going to check GlantzLeningrad' tonight, but would welcome infos from the Soviet side. Andreas 09:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Unmitigated praise" I imagine would involve an excess of value statements such as "fought splendidly," "made a brave stand," etc. Strangely, I couldn't find these in the article. Why don't you cite the passages you're having problems with?

a) Besides your raging bias, why do you have reason to think that the Soviets had substantially less men than the Order of Battle indicates?

b) Why exactly is this important?

c) Again, why does this matter? They were probably deployed in a nearby sector that wasn't attacked.

This site has a very well-researched account of the battle. That's as far as I'm going today; I see no reason to run to the library for sources just because you seem to feel bad for the Russians. Oh, and I'm reverting your changes to the Warbox. Albrecht 16:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Suit yourself, I would however respect your opinion more if you did not accuse me of 'raging bias'. But hey, we can't all be brought up to be polite. I would like to point out that unverified casualty claims are not acceptable, and I will replace the numbers with something better if I find it.

At the moment my problem is quite simply that it looks as if 5,900 Spanish soldiers held off 44,000 Red Army soldiers. I have trouble believing that, and I would like to point out to you that your linked site is not very firm on the 44,000, instead hedging with 'probably'. So clearly it would be preferable to have the correct number, or to indicate that the 44,000 is an estimate, as I did.

a) It is important because we should use correct figures instead of guesstimates.

b) See a)

c) Maybe, maybe not. See a)

The article at the moment is a very one-sided description of the battle. You can call me pointing that out bias, but that just leads me to assume you have an agenda. Andreas 16:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I reacted too strongly there. The "unmitigated praise" comment is what did it for me; after working so hard to make sure that the article was factually-based, it's kind of a drag to hear something like that. I actually agree about the need for accuracy, but I don't think it's necessary to go fudging things up in the battlebox unless definite information is found to the contrary. About the disparity of numbers: attacking forces generally needed at least 3:1 superiority to overcome prepared defences, and the Soviets don't exactly have a shining record of using numerical superiority to good effect.

I agree that the article has a one-sided description, but no more than (say) Battle of Carillon and Rorke's Drift are one-sided in favour of the British. If you want to accuse it of "unmitigated praise" you'd better have good reason to. All I see when I look at it is strictly factual narration. Albrecht 16:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree I should have used different terms. I have not read any of the articles you link, and would not be able to judge them, since they are outside my area of expertise. I also agree it what you wrote is factual (except for the minor corrections I made), but most of the facts seem to come from the German side, which creates a problem. Hence the call for someone with access to Russian sources to come forward. I have some myself, and would perfer if we could co-operate on this article. Andreas 17:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I have added to the article based on Infantes and Glantz - some explanations below.

• I have provided the context for the battle to counter the charge that it was unimportant. based on Glantz.
• Spanish planning based on Infantes.
• Regarding who held what at the end, it is clear from these two books that Krasny Bor was lost on the 10th, and was not recaptured.
• The 33,000 Soviets are an estimation, assuming the three Soviet infantry divisions were at 11,000 men each. That is extremely unlikely. I could find no support for the old number of 44,000 anywhere in these books.
• The casualty number has to be assumed to be questionable, since it is based on POW interrogations, and the Spanish did not control the battlefield afterwards.
• The extension of the German OOB is to reflect that the 55th Army was not just facing the Spanish, and to show why this was not a 'minor engagement'
• I noted that some of the original text is a straight copy from text on the Division Azul website. I suggest that this is not a good idea under any circumstances, but if one does it, it is recommended to at least give the link.

Andreas 12:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Things are shaping up well. Thoughts:

1. I think we need to be careful about how we juggle Warbox Strengths and the Order of Battle. The figure of 33,000, for instance, is arrived at on Glantz's assumption that one of the four Soviet divisions actually swept eastwards against the 4th SS Police Division and so did not take part in the Krasny Bor fighting. Yet both these units are listed in the Order of Battle. Maybe the distinction between the Battle of Krasny Bor and other nearby fighting in the overall concurrent Soviet offensive needs to be clearer. ~

The 33,000 is from Infantes, not Glantz. Infantes has a map in his book confirming that the 45th Guards attacked Krasny Bor in his centre, the 72nd Rifle the Ishora sector on his left, and the 63rd Guards his right flank. I would assume based on Infantes and Glantz that the mobile group support (122nd Tank and 35th Ski Brigade) attacked along the highway into Krasny Bor as well. I agree that the OOB needs to be touched up a bit to reflect this. Andreas 08:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I hate nothing more than cluttered battleboxes. Let me try moving some of the info to the endnotes; if objections present themselves, I'll reconsider.

Fine with a note as far as I am concerned.Andreas 08:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Would a note on pronounciation be useful?

Yes.Andreas 08:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1. A few questionable phrases have popped up, i.e. the Spanish Foreign Legion is mistakenly referred to. No big deal.

Not sure where that came from, but it is really out of place here. Andreas 08:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• (The ridiculous charge that the battle was "unimportant," by the way, will I am sure recede into the darkness as work on WWII battles progresses. Right now massively long and complex actions, like Stalingrad and Leningrad, are presented in aggregate form. But as time goes on their component actions will get articles of their own—see Battle of Gallipoli and Polish September Campaign, which are both broken down into a multitude of constituent engagements. Ultimately I'm willing to bet this kind of "minor engagement" will become the norm. Albrecht 03:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have my doubts about that, unless we really get a lot more info about the conflict than we currently have. Andreas 08:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and what about our friend Sviridov? Surely he deserves at least a stub. The red link's killing me. Anyone have info? Albrecht 03:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I check for that in Slaughterhouse, but am not hopeful. Andreas 08:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Who won?

I think this was a (costly) German defensive victory, since the resistance by L. Korps destroyed the operational design by the STAVKA, namely to break through to Tosno and encircle the Mga group of German forces. It is apparent from documents quoted in Glantz that Stavka saw it the same way. The main goal of the Red Army was to break the encirclement ring - they failed. Andreas 09:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the situation is analogous to Battle of Borodino. Napoleon's goal was to destroy the Russian army and incapacitate it for further resistance, and he failed. Yet the article describes the outcome as "the French victory". We discussed the issue ad nauseum, with the majority claiming that the result was undecisive. But I don't recall anyone claiming it as a Russian victory, as it should have been called, if we apply the same standards of "victory" as you apply to the the Battle of Krasny Bor. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Napoleonics, but I would say that Borodino could probably count as a tactical victory by the French, an operational draw, and a strategic failure. In this case however I have serious trouble seeing the result even as indecisive. The Red Army had a clear set of goals - tactically to break the siege ring, operationally to encircle the Mga grouping, and strategically to rip apart Army Group North. They did not achieve any of these, it was total failure on all counts, even though they came close to the tactical goal. All they ended up with was the village of Krasny Bor at a cost of maybe 11,000 casualties, and a casualty exchange rate of worse than 1:2. I find that is quite clearly a defensive success. Andreas 09:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here, so I'll make a few (somewhat vague) points. This is rather outside my area of knowledge, so I don't have any good sources to examine; but, going exclusively by the contents of the article at the moment, one might draw certain similarities to the Battle of the Somme (small, extremely costly advance; failure of actual objectives), which is listed as "Stalemate" with a more detailed explanation in the article. Another idea would be to abandon the concept of "victory" entirely; the field is labeled "Result", and there's no reason why something like "Successful Axis defense" couldn't be used in it. —Kirill Lokshin 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that. It would help to be more differentiated, even in the battle box. ;-) Andreas 16:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the uniformity provided by sticking to "X victory" and "Indecisive." Allowing more detailed descriptions might seem like a good idea prima facie, but believe me, if we let a new lapse in standards loose upon the Project, nothing but confusion, ambiguity, and frustration will result (I've generally discouraged even things like "Pyrrhic victory" because of the tendency toward overapplication). I myself am still unclear about exact Soviet aims and results, but until someone challenges Andreas's above account, I see no reason to cast aside "German victory." Albrecht 16:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should necessarily value consistency over flexibility; certainly, if given the option between a slightly non-standard wording and a protracted edit war, I would think we should prefer the former.

Another option, if we can find citations in literature for the divergent views, would be to leave the field as "Disputed¹" and provide more information in the footnote (or the article text itself) as to what different historians consider the battle to be.

The question of whether the account itself is accurate is, of course, a good one; and one that I really can't comment on. —Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, experience has shown me that unless contributors offer objectively justifiable reasons for their edits, it's no use trying to accommodate them. How can someone like Ghirlandajo read, "The Red Army had a clear set of goals - tactically to break the siege ring, operationally to encircle the Mga grouping, and strategically to rip apart Army Group North. They did not achieve any of these, it was total failure on all counts," and "Stavka saw it the same way," not reply anything, and go on to change the result field to "Soviet victory"? Sorry, no game.

A policy like the one you're suggesting now would only open the door and give even more leverage to trolls and dissidents. People would still go ahead and change things they don't like, to the disservice of facts and history. Edit wars would continue to flare up just as before. Then the revisionists would say, "Well, if we can't reach an agreement, why don't we compromise and label it 'Disputed'?" And before you know it, every battle from El Alamein to St. Foy is disputed. I could not agree to this. Albrecht 17:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not agree to label it disputed either. That is meaningless - anything can be disputed. It is a cop-out. Andreas 18:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. What's our preferred option, then? Just edit-warring between "German victory" and "Soviet victory" is rather unproductive, in my opinion; is there some compromise wording we can adopt? —Kirill Lokshin 19:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Think outside the box! There is no need to restrict it to a concrete binary win-lose situation. The box is for "Result", so let's just state the result! In this case, it could be "Soviets capture Moscow-Leningrad Highway"! -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the whole "win-lose" thing is kind of silly in respect to other battles and not something always determinable in one statement. And both sides likely defined "victory" diferrently in any events - with historians in hindsight applying even more definitions. Michael Dorosh 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to change results to: "Soviets retake Moscow-Leningrad Highway". Any objections? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they only retook a small section of the highway, so wording it like that is somewhat misleading. We seem to have reached some understanding in the section below; maybe leave that for a while and see if it sticks?

In general, though, I think we should avoid being too specific in that field; the result should be able to stand on its own without recourse to a situation map ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, opening descriptions says: "Although the operation ended with a large portion of the Leningrad–Moscow Highway in Soviet hands for the first time since September 1941". *shrug* Well, actually since the edit conflict has stopped over the results section now, take your time... :D -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The opening description is incorrect. They captured a small part of the highway that by itself was not of importance. They did not open the highway, as they had planned. As far as a compromise solution goes, I'd be happy with German defensive success, or successful German defense. Andreas 06:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Just noted that it currently states 'Axis tactical victory'. That is fine I think, since it is an accurate description of what happened, and neatly makes a point on its importance as well. Andreas 07:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Misguided dispute

Let us compare two battles:

• Battle of Sevastopol October 30, 1941-July 4, 1942 - duration 240+ days
• Battle of Krasny Bor February 9 - February 13, 1943 - duration 4 days

If you split BoS into separate assaults comparable in scale with BoKB, you will have, like, at least 20 Soviet victories here that consisted in simply holding off. The same holds for each siege. Essentially it consists of a chain of victories of besieged and possibly (only possibly) one victory of the assaulting side. But this black-and-white won/lost classification for a battle simply does not reflect the reality. To make the classification in unclear cases basing on some objectives set is just as POV as anything else. One may very convincingly argue that the Siege of Sevastopol was not one but a chain of Soviet glorious victories, because Sevastopol achieved its objective: to hold off the overwhelming forces.

It is pretty much conuter-intuitive to use the word "victory" in a situation when the winning side's success amounted to sitting tight. IMO the meanigful record for the "outcome" should be "Spanish/Germans held" (notice another problem with the currnt verison, it was not "German" victory, if any, it was Spanish). mikka (t) 19:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I take the last words back. "sitting tight" is actually called tactical victory in military, and that's what must be written into the battlebox. mikka (t) 19:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Three points:

1. At no point was Spain ever at war with the Soviet Union. The Spaniards at Krasny Bor had volunteered for service in a unit of the Wehrmacht, the German army. "Spanish victory" is meaningless; there was no "victory" for Spain.

   OK. Still "german victory" sounds a quite misdireced here. I changed for more exact wording "Victory of German side", i.e., of "Germany and its Allies". mikka (t) 20:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

   No. None of Germany's "allies" were present at the battle. Troops of foreign nationalities all fought in Wehrmacht units as part of the German military apparatus. How is this even a point of contention? I have already compromised on another, more important point, and now you want to dictate the exact wording too? Anyway, "Axis victory" is OK with me. Albrecht 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

   I've changed "German side" to "Axis", since the latter is the more common term, as far as I know. Feel free to change it back if there's some subtlety I'm missing here. —Kirill Lokshin 23:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

2. About Sevastopol, I'm pretty sure the Germans achieved plenty of local tactical victories during that campaign (it would probably look a lot more like Gallipoli, which is sprinkled with a few Allied/Australian victories). And if not, then so what? The Polish Campaign has been split into a huge number of individual battles which are almost exclusively German victories. Strangely, I don't see any Poles tearing at their beards and complaining it isn't fair—in fact, they set it up like that themselves. Same with Gallipoli.

   I am afraid you are mistaken about Polish. I am pretty sure that if Polish forces managed to hold Germans for a day in some battle, they will not hesitate to describe it as Polish victory. mikka (t) 20:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

   This of course is not the point. Go look at the battles yourself. Go ahead, it won't take long. You'll find that the campaign is filled overwhelmingly with German victories. You argued above, through the Sevastopol analogy, that it's somehow unfair or misleading to disaggregate large actions into many articles. There's no truth to your belief. Albrecht 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

   How does this contradict to what I've said? Also, you misread intentions of my Sevatopol analogy, but this is not important now. mikka (t) 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Strictly speaking, a successful defence can have strategic as well as tactical implications. Krasny Bor, as stated above, was a strategic failure for the Soviets. But if "German tactical victory" will please you, I'm willing to consider it. Albrecht 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

   Yes it can, if it is on strategic timeframe. In this case, did it tilt the overall scale? By the way, the article is missing an important piece: the place of the battle in the overall flow of events. There is a "Background" section, but it is only half of the history: a prehistory. Was there any follow-up? mikka (t) 20:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

   I think that's true of this period in general. We have dozens of little "Operation Such-and-such" articles that aren't linked in any coherent way; but cleaning that up will require a lot of work. —Kirill Lokshin 23:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

   And we might have made more progress at expanding the scope of the article if not for this unbroken chain of counterproductive objections on issues of minor importance. Let the article breath, people–it's not the end of the world if another victory appears on the German roll. As far as I know, the war's over. They lost. Albrecht 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

   Yes we know they lost. And we also know that it was because of Russian winter and muddy roads, and stupid Hitler who didn't listen smart generals who won all battles, and in fact it is USA have won the WWII for us. mikka (t) 01:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

   Now, let's not re-fight that whole mess again; in any case, the right place for that fight is Talk:World War II ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 01:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

   Mikka, you are being silly. I am the last person who is going to short-change the Soviet side, if you doubt it, feel free to look at my contributions. Andreas 07:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

   With that said, I am really at a loss here. I have given good reasons why David Glantz describes the battle as a Soviet failure - Infantes does too, but he is clearly biased, even though he is giving a good bit of credit to the Soviet side. Glantz is not a person who can be accused to be of the Paul Carell school of history. All I am getting back is generalised hand-waving, with absolutely no analysis why this view is wrong. You have to do a bit better if you want to convince me that my line of argument is wrong. It is easy. Look at my argument, counter it with facts, source the facts. Then we can talk. At the moment there is none of this. Sevastopol, Borodino, they all have nothing to do with this article, and 'I can not see how this can be described as a German victory' is weasling at its worst. Keep some focus please, and contribute to the discussion. Thanks. Andreas 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

   My focus is very simple and reflected in the title: balck-and-white description almost never reflects real life. The discussion must be not about who have won and who have lost, but what would be most precise (while concise) description of the outcome. This is not, like, a boolean variable that must be assigned a 0/1 value in some database system. This is encyclopedia, which must provide accurate information. My suggestion was to describe it as "tactical victory", presented above, and I don't understand why you are at a loss. As for your "absolultely no analysis" part, excuse me, this is my time to say "I am at a loss". Soviets did move forward against a heavily fortified region, and it is quite reasonable to recognize it as "partial succcess". So I suggest you your own suggestion: keep focus, try to understand what other people say, and avoid personal attacks. mikka (t) 18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

   Fair enough - I already accepted some less clear cut description, and your current edit is absolutely fine by me. Andreas 13:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

   Okay, great. But the humble Battle of Krasny Bor ("Battle?" Who are we kidding? A minor engagement, if even that) is a poor place to start. If you want to make a sweeping reform to the way victories are presented in battleboxes, here's where you'll get your statement across: Siege of Leningrad. Now that's a battle. And look, the outcome is described as "Soviet victory," what a gross misrepresentation of the facts! Pitiful and laughable, right? Why, the very thought must be gnawing at you right now. After all, like you say, an encyclopaedia must provide accurate information, not black-and-white descriptions or 0/1 booleans. Go on, you can recycle the very arguments you've plastered above. Cut and paste, it's easy. I propose you ask for: "Many partial German successes; destruction of city; eventual lifting of German siege after repeated, costly failures and a huge loss of Soviet life." Now that's accurate. Doesn't it sound much better?

   I will recognize success in this task as proof of your sincerity. Or does your "very simple focus" fizzle out when the Soviets win? Albrecht 02:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

   Come to think of it, that "Decisive Allied victory" over at Battle of Waterloo is really bugging me. It's a huge distortion; everyone knows that French political crises, not Wellington's victory, is what led to Napoleon's fall. Maybe you can get it changed to: "French do not pierce Allied line." I think that would be much more accurate. Good luck, Albrecht 02:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

   Following your advice, I did look thru your contributions and indeed, you demonstrate expertise in the domain. Unfortunately your behavior here is that of an insulted expert. And to the extent of loss of logic. (1) Siege of Leningrad: You obviously don't see a grain of sense in your suggestion, if peeled off some grotesque phrasing. (2) "Proof of sinserity": thank you for not suggesting me to go and reform the whole word to prove that my intentions are not evil. Wikipedia is a cooperative effort. If I will be disagreed by the majority, I will not lose my sleep. (3) "Vaterloo" it is just childish. (4) If you don't want to look for something useful in my suggestion and prefer to wage a battle, please allow me retire from the current thead of discussion. mikka (t) 03:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have no idea who you are addressing this to? If Albrecht, I do not think he invited you to look at his contributions - I did. On the other hand, I do not think I made a remark about 'Vaterloo', and what do you mean by "(1) Siege of Leningrad: You obviously don't see a grain of sense in your suggestion, if peeled off some grotesque phrasing." If you could clarify who you are addressing and (if you address me), clarify what you are trying to say, I would happily reply. Andreas 13:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bullying by Ghirlandajo

I find his behaviour and misrepresentation(distance from Leningrad compared to distance Vienna Prague) and continued reverts trying to shove an ideologically misguided and plain wrong POV into this article unacceptable. If this continues I recommend he should be blocked from editing. Andreas 08:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. When you call a content dispute "vandalism", it is an offense which may lead to admin action. So take care. As for the article, I believe it should be listed for deletion. I googled for Battle of Krasny Bor in Cyrillic and found zero results. Even the websites specifically devoted to the Battle of Leningrad ignore this action. The 1000-page Great Patriotic War Encyclopedia, which enumeratees and details hundreds of military engagements on the Eastern Front, doesn't mention Krasny Bor. Not even once. If the article is original research, then please say so and we'll delete it. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are joking, right? I suggest you look at the sources provided. Maybe you want to contact David Glantz. So far you have not provided a shred of evidence that anything you say is true, and your performance on distance measurement (Prague - Vienna = Krasny Bor - Leningrad) makes it obvious that you are not interested in serious contribution. Andreas 09:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction on Vandalism. I have found the more appropriate term. Andreas 09:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is actually very simple for you to prove that the article is fantasy. Just show us what 55th Army was doing on 10th - 13th February 1943. Where was it stationed, what were its actions? Provide the sources for your claims (e.g. army war diary), and you can make a case that this was a battle that is a figment of the imagination of the Germans. Soviet sources given by Glantz are Burov Blokada den' za dnem for fighting in the sector and Boevoi sostav chast' for the OOB of 55th Army. Andreas 10:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like your habit of hyping up a minor engagement (e.g., Battle of Târgul Frumos), which even the most circumstantial accounts ignore and one of thousands that actually comprised the war, and then inserting it into the WWII battlebox on the par with Stalingrad ans Siege of Leningrad. I wish some really important event - such as Battle of Prokhorovka - benefitted from your attention rather than some obscure skirmishes which you claim as German victories. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in the discussion of the battle box I think it is not appropriate for small engagements and it should be split to reflect this. The present battle should be a sub-article to Operation Polar Star which should be a sub-article to the Siege of Leningrad. All of that does not excuse your bullying behaviour and your start of an edit war in this article, and I have no intention to further discuss more fundamental matters here. Put up or shut up - what did 55th Army do on February 10-13 1943? Where was it? Your veiled accusation that I am hyping up engagements that are German victories is noted. You are talking without any idea of what you are talking about. Like Mikka, I recommend to you to look at my edits here before insinuating such rubbish. Andreas 13:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No wonder Ghirlandajo did not find Krasny Bor in Soviet mil books. Indeed, it was one of tens of thousands of engagements, nonnotable from the Soviet point of view. 3 days, 11,000, big deal. On the other hand, it is no wondewr that it is remembered by Spaniards. mikka (t) 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that is correctly identifying the crux of the issue. It is not an important battle to Germans or Russians, but the Spanish volunteer formation in the east lost almost 50% of all its casualties in the almost three years it was fighting in this one battle. That is why it warrants inclusion, as far as I am concerned. Andreas 13:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Beyond that, there can be no cause, in my view, for belittling an article because it's "not important enough." (barring outright fabrication, etc.) You'll notice that Battle of Gettysburg shares a Campaignbox with e.g. Battle of Aldie and another half-dozen inconclusive skirmishes. The Battle of San Juan Hill is lumped together with a minor action at Manimani. The French and Indian War Campaignbox, like the Eastern Front box, includes all actions in that theatre, be they large, decisive engagements like the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, the Battle of Sainte-Foy, Battle of Carillon; or the capture of small frontier posts like Fort Beauséjour, Fort Niagara, and Fort Ligonier. Moreover, while the battle proper might be a drop in the bucket of the Eastern Front, it's not like the Soviet 55th Army was a nonentity; a figment of someone's imagination. Had its Krasny Bor offensive been successful, I imagine the Germans at Leningrad would have been left in pretty bad shape, with a ripple effect surging out to all other areas of the front. Albrecht 17:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Volunteer army?

how sure are u that it was a volunteer army? wouldnt the vetrans from the civil war be conscripted to fight in ww2?

I am Spanish, and the Blue Division was formed by volunteer soldiers. Most of them, even not all, were veterans of the Spanish Civil War, this is why they were so effective in combat. The fact that they held several tank attacks without suitable weapons was not a miracle, since they were very used to fight Soviet tanks by using Molotov Cocktails and they had developed different strategies to destroy them during the Spanish Civil War. In fact, they invented the Molotov cocktail during the civil war when they ran out of antitank ammunition during the battle of Madrid. They were not Nazi, but fanatically anticomunist, this is why they joined Germany to fight the Soviets, but not the English nor the Americans or French. By the way, the famous cinema director Luis Garcia Berlanga was one of them, despite nowadays he is an old man rather situated in the center-left wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.117.41 (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is B.S. When John Hills was writing his book in the 60s (J. HillS. Franco: the Man and his Nation. N.Y. 1967) he had interviewed a large number of surviving veterans of the division. Not one had admitted to being a volunteer, with most citing the promise of financial reward as motivation for enlisting.

On a separate note, it has been mentioned to me that the article is becoming a joke with Russian reader because Голубая (blue) in Russia now refers to gays. I would seriously urge renaming of the article to the 250th division, if only to be consistent with the rest of Wehrmacht--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am the one who wrote the second paragraph. Maybe John Hills didnt find any volunteer survivor among the veterans of the division who was a volunteer. But my personal experience with veterans of the Blue Division (I personally met three of them) was that the three ones were volunteers. My Grandfather fought in the Civil War in the National side, he wasnt a volunteer in the Blue Division, but he met many of them in the Army. And he always talked to me about the Blue Division as volunteers. I dont know personally to Mr. Luis García Berlanga and the Spanish actor Luis Ciges, but in the TV interviews I have seen, both said whithout any hesitation that they were volunteers in the Blue Division. Maybe the fact that the five former soldiers of the Blue Division I have hear with my very ears talking about that issue said they were volunteers, doesnt mean nothing. But I rather think that Mr. Hills lies or maybe he just talked whit the ones who were not volunteers (by the way, here in Spain is not noticed so far a single soldier of the Blue Division who wasnt volunteer, this data would rise the interest of many professional historians here).

Well, firstly they were all conscripts because they were selected from the Spanish Army. The volunteered for service while being conscripts. The question is why they volunteered. Hill argues that the vast majority volunteered for financial gains or believing the war would be over by the time they saw any action, so it would be like a huge adventure. In the 60s, with the war still very fresh in everyone's minds few wanted to advertise they were on the wrong side of the front-line. Other evidence from German and Soviet sources suggests the morale in the division was very poor, and at Krasny Bor they fought largely to save their lives. However 80% of all POWs from the division were taken there.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can only remark another mistake of mr. Hills. Not all the volunteers in the Blue Division were selected in the Spanish Army. Many of them enlisted in the Blue Division when they were not serving in the Army, although most of them were largely experienced in combat. The most polemic reason to sign as volunteer in the Blue Division was that there were some cases of soldiers who were sons, brothers, etc. of men who fought in the Republican side during the Civil War. Then, enlisting in the Blue Division to fight the Comunism as a good Spaniard, would "clean" in some way the name of their families. Well, about the moral in the Blue Division, you have only to see the pics avaiable about them. If they had a very poor morale, they managed to hide that fact very well. You talk about German (?) and Soviet (of course they would say that the morale in the Blue Division was poor, this is called "propaganda")sources. What about the Spanish sources? You say that they fought largely to save their lives. Is there any battle in modern History in which the soldiers didn´t fight largely to save their lives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.48.103 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrg, the 'Blue Division' is the common name in English. And this is not the Ru-wiki, it's the En-wiki; Russian uses of the term 'blue' have no validity, though you, personally, may be able to see connotations of the word in other languages than English. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually its a common term in Spanish, from which the English term is derived. However the unit designation was the 250th, right? Lots of division have common names that are better known then their actual titles, and yet they are not used in this way in Wikipedia. The use of "Blue Division" was always added in brackets in the German use, and not as its primary designation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish flag

Please stop adding the Spanish Flag for the participant entry. Spain didnt participate in ww2 and thats it. The so called "blue division" was the 250 infantry division of the wehrmacht under german command and control. They may weared a spanish flag as insignia, but the means nothing as this was not uncommon for the foreign division of the wehrmacht and the SS. We already got through that at the Battle of Leningrad article. There is no need for an edit war for such a minor point. StoneProphet (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the matter, but agree that there is no need of an edit war over this. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Emilo Esteban Infantes

The Spanish troops were under direct command of general Emilio Esteban Infantes, not under Georg Lindemann. Avieso (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The battle involved more than just the Spanish division, and the commander of the 18th Army was Lindemann.D2306 (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

casualty rates

"70% of those engaged" means exactly what it says. According to Glantz, the Blue Division had 4,500 men engaged on the first day. Other sources put Spanish strength to 5,100. The division was pulled apart and guarding several different sections of the Leningrad Front. So 70% is a true figureD2306 (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

then we need to put the source and its info into the article - i.e. "70% of the 4500 men engaged that day" - then all is well; because if it just says division readers - like me - might assume that either the division was actually only Brigade sized or that our numbers here are wrong. noclador (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede does not need to be cited if info is in the article. Glantz (2002) pp. 294–295 is one source for the low strength and casualties estimates for the Spanish division ( 4,500 and 3,200 respectively), Isayev p. 464 for the 70% number.

Feel free to word it in a clearer way. Maybe like "the division lost lost 3,###-3,###(low-high estimate) men in the fighting, amounting to ##-##% of those engaged". The info is very useful to highlight the intensity of the fighting, and really should be in the article.D2306 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I reworded the part to make it clear that the casualty rate only applies to the men engaged in battle. please have a look and let me know if it is fine with you. noclador (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "c/e; npov; excessive intricate detail cited to non RS". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)