Talk:Battle of Tannenberg

Old talk

Tannenberg and Grunwald are different places and what we call Battle of Tannenberg happened in 1914 between Russians and Germans. How is this battle called ? --Taw

Urg -- I probably should have called this one First Battle of T or B of T (I) -- duh! I knew there was a WWII B of T... D'oh! Taw, they're both called the same thing. Any opiniions on how to remedy? JHK

You mean WW1, or was ther one more battle of Tannenberg I'm not aware of ? Anyway do it like Polish done ! 1410 battle is "Battle of Grunwald" and 1914 battle is "Battle of Tannenberg". Or make "Battle of Tannenberg" article just pair of links: to "1410 Battle of Grunwald/Battle of Tannenberg" and "1914 Battle of Tannenberg".

Sorry, I'm a bit out of it today -- 'flu, I'm afraid. That one...WWI...1914...that's what I meant. My only objection to doing it the Polish way is that English speakers are probably not familiar with Grunwald, so it won't do any good. JHK By the way -- where's that table of names -- I've got some current English versions to add...

---

Umm, Are you _sure_ that Grunwald was theme of Aleksander Nevsky? I always thought that it was about totally different battle! And Bohemians fough in Polish army too...

As a sidenote - there were also Bohemians in the forces of the Teutonic Order. Their history at times is even more complicated than the History of Poland... Halibutt 14:26, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Revenge

The Germans may have "redeemed" themselves by winning in the same location as the loss in 1410, but how exactly did they get revenge if they were fighting the Russians and not the Poles? Did Hindenburg really view this as "revenge", or is it just a poor choice of words? Appleseed 15:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the following line from the end of the article:

Hindenburg saw this battle as a fitting revenge for the defeat of the Teutonic Knights.

Feel free to put it back in with an explanation or reference. Appleseed 16:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There were Russians at Grunwald (from Smolensk and other cities within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) and there were Poles at Tannenberg (as Poland was part of the Russian Empire). Moreover, Hindenburg saw the battle as revenge against Slavs, not Russians specifically. In Russia, the PLC is often called "Litovskaja Rus'", or "Lithuanian Russia", since it contained huge tracts of Kievan Rus' lands and one of its official languages was "Russian" (Ruthenian). Kazak 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, would you mind providing a reference? Appleseed (Talk) 02:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, there are no proofs of the presence of Smolensk units at Grunwald. Nevertheless, the Hindenburg's words seems logical. Teutons were defeted by the united forces of Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Lithuanians, Belorussians and Ukrainians) and the Kingdom of Poland (Poles). Possibly, there were also Russians from Smolensk in the army. In the 1914 none of those states existed any more, all of them were now provinces of the Russian Empire. The Empire stated itself as a rightful successor of those countries, so it was logical for Hindenburg to treat the defeat of Russia as a "revenge". User:AMartyn 11:10, 30 August 2006.

I also think it has something to do with Russia pretending to be the Pan-slavic country that all slavs should live in, and proclaimed itself protector of all Slavs, hence why they backed up Serbia.

--Jadger 03:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Encrypted

Kahn's Codebreakers indicates the Russian signals were encrypted, & broken by the Germans, not sent en clair. Can someone settle the dispute? Trekphiler 05:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The latter explanation is the one I have seen up to now. However it might be worth looking into this. PatGallacher 11:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In the book August 1914 Solzhenitsyn cites the interception of "unencrypted signals" as of vital importance. As the battle progressed and lines of communication were breached- these interceptions became more frequent and disasterous for the trapped centre Corps.

Although, as encircling neared completion, a breakdown in communications occurred which rendered these intercepts as strategically less important.

See Solzhenitsyn's description (using research from the Ukraine) of dispatches proving far more effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.80.138 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not in a position to dispute Solzhenitsyn's research (not having read his book), I'm inclined to believe Kahn, who's usually very reliable. As well, on the same point, the article says, "Nevertheless they were eventually convinced they were indeed real". Beyond the bad grammar, I'd be interested to know how they were convinced, which leads me to believe it was from decrypts. I'm willing to bet (based on WW2 experience) Russian radio operators were panicky & sending poorly, giving the German intercept service an EZ time, perhaps even sending en clair, but I'd like solid evidence from somebody with a specialty in crypto or intelligence. Trekphiler 10:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Haufler says sigs sent en clair; I'd prefer a more reliable source... Trekphiler 17:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(Meanwhile, 16 years later ...) I was under the impression that the uncoded messages were a myth and that in fact the Russians used a "childishly simple" code which the Germans cracked easily. Like the tale that Rennenkampf and Samsonov once came to blows on a railway platform, or that the French pantalon rouge was visible for miles, it's a good story but probably not actually true.Paulturtle (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

War Memorial

I cannot find the article on the Tannenberg war memorial, perhaps something could be added at the end of this article, or if I am missing it, a link to the war memorial article. thanks --Jadger 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

nevermind, I found it. --Jadger 03:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Conclusion

Excuse me... but the conclusion "this battle lost the war" lacks anything even remotely close to logic. Could you please explain? The diversion of the troops was not an effect of the battle itself but of that of the German High Command DECIDING TO TRANSFER THEM. They didn't even take part in the battle so their transfer to the Eastern front is irelevant for the battle, as is the battle irelevant for their transfer. The troops were transfered to stop the huge Russian advance into Eastern Poland which (NOT to win this battle specifically), without this great and surprising victory, might have ended the war in 1914 in favour of the Entente. The decision was logical anyway... what proffesional soldier could have thought 1 army could defeat 2 armies on such wide front without any geographical advantages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makidonu (talk • contribs) 11:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The view that the disasters in East Prussia lost the war for Russia may be slightly overstated, the general idea is that they were like an early leading goal in the first ten minutes of a football match, giving the Germans the advantage. But the defeats cruelly exposed the ineptitude of the Russian army and the striking technical superiority of the Germans. And it's true that Russia never really managed to bring the war back to the German frontier after this - through 1915 and 1916 the Germans kept driving deep into Poland, Belorussia and the future baltic countries.

You have to consider too that while Wilhelm II was solidly popular in Germany and the German political system had not been seriously under attack before 1914, in Russia the Tsar and the old order were already being questioned by very many people, and the war was seen as a last chance to save the old system. So when there arrived two shocking defeats in the space of ten days (Tannenberg and the Battle of the Masurian lakes) it undermined the credibility and self-confidence of the state. This is roughly what Solzhenitzyn argues in August Fourteen of course, but I think he's right on the money, and the propaganda impact of Tannenberg has ben well attested by many others. At the time, it was sixty years since Russia had decisively showed itself equal to a Western power in war - all the way back to the Crimea War - and Russians would have been very aware of this.Strausszek (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Can someone check into the Russion numbers? My reading indicates that Samsonov had 150,000 troops and Rennenkampf had 200,000, but the box shows 150,000 for both Samsonov and Rennenkampf. I don't think this is correct, but I don't have any resources handy at the moment. Perhaps the box is referring to those troops that were actually present at Tannenberg, but in this case, then Rennenkampf should not be listed as a commander. CrackWilding 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the numbers. cheers 141.13.8.14 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Allied

I thought the British and French were called the Entèt not allied. Allied they were named in the second world war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.209.35.73 (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "Allied Powers" was commonly used later in World War I, after the United States had entered the war on the side of Britain and France. Prior to that, they were typically known as the "Entente Powers," after the prewar Anglo-French accord that Russia later acceded to. But in modern use, the term "Allies" is often used for the side involving these countries, regardless of the time frame being referred to. Jsc1973 (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Britain: A factor in the Schlieffen Plan?

Paragraph 3 contains the sentence, "The entire Schlieffen Plan was based on the idea of defeating France and England as quickly as possible, and then transporting their armies by train to the eastern front." I'm not sure that the entry of Britain was taken into consideration in the original Schlieffen Plan. Britain and France were not allies at the start of the German invasion and Britain only entered the war in response to Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality. Did von Schlieffen take British entry in consideration? --Beetfarm Louie 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

personally, I don't think so, everything I have heard on the matter is that Germany was reliant on UK remaining neutral, but you must remember the Schlieffen Plan was devised before Wilhelm II started the Naval Arms Race with Britain, which severely worsened the Anglo-German relations (and the Brits were itchin for a good fight just like everyone else in 1914). also I would like to point out in that sentence it says "The entire Schlieffen Plan was based on the idea of defeating France and England as quickly as possible, and then transporting their armies by train to the eastern front." this makes it seem as if the Germans were going to transport the Anglo-French forces to the eastern Front, a little misplaced subject in the sentence. should probably be "all German Forces" instead of "their armies"

--Jadger 20:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who was in command?

Were Hindenburg and Ludendorff really in command of the German army during the battle of tannenberg? In a history forum (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=282318) someone claimed that a certain Colonel Hoffman was actually in charge and reponsible for the victory, a wikipedia article (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Max_Hoffmann) actually supports this. Has anyone more knowledge about this matter? thestor 10:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Max Hoffman was a staff colonel who had already drawn up much of the planning for the German riposte at Tannenberg even before Ludendorff and Hindenburg arrived on the scene. In the German system, staff officers like Hoffman actually did much of the planning, not the commanders in the field. Hoffman was originally on the staff of General Prittwitz, who was fired after demanding to be allowed to retreat to the Vistula (abandoning a huge chunk of German territory), in the face of the Russian attack. To answer your question...yes, Hindenburg and Ludendorff were in command. But Hoffman, with an assist from Hermann von Francois' disobedience, was the architect of the victory. user:Jsc1973

Olzstyn or Olzstynek?

Shouldn't the location of the battle be Hohenstein (the modern town of Olsztynek), instead of Allenstein (modern Olsztyn) as currently stated in the article? Olsztyn is located much more to the north and, moreover, it is in fact Olsztynek the place near Grunwald. --83.49.214.110 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC) (User Oersted from Catalan wiki)

Ok, I answered myself. Olsztyn is not much more to the north, just 30 km north of Olsztynek, but it is a much more important city, so in fact, it's perfectly correct to state "near Allenstein (modern Olsztyn)". Sorry for the misunderstanding. --83.49.214.110 (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree here: The significant fighting was at Usdau to the West and at Bischofstein & Seeburg to the East, with Russian attacks taking place around Muhlen, Frogenau as is written in the article. So the width of the battle field was 40 miles or so. None of these places are especically "near" Allenstein. The large surrenders of Russian forces takes place between Niedenburg and Willenstein, again significantly distant from Allenstein. If you wish to record that the battlefield is near a town other than Tannenberg then Niedenburg is the more appropriate as it is central to the fighting and surrender and served as Samsonov's HQ for a few days. The town of Tannenberg did actually house Hindenburg's HQ for a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisionist99 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Destruction of the Tannenberg Monument

The Tannenberg Monument was destroyed by German army engineers and not by Russians (Soviets?) and poles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.68.11 (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

There are contradicting sections in the article referring to casulties on the russian side. Earlier, the were listed as 160,000 and now they are listed as 90,000. Yet the section called "The main battle (26 August to 30 August)" list them as 160,000 with 92,000 captured and 78,000 dead and wounded. The new numbers reference the book "Tannenberg 1914" by John Sweetman. I was wondering which numbers are correct? ChrisMKL (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Small request

Could an editor here check the (very short) summary of this battle at World War I#Eastern Front and provide cites? Thank you.LeadSongDog come howl 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Samsonov committed suicide but is marked as 'Killed In Action' is that OK?

The infobox has a marker next to Samsonov saying he was killed in action. But the text (which I've been able to confirm in a book) says that he committed suicide. Is this correct practice for military figures? That if they kill themselves (in this case as a direct result of military failure) they are still classed as 'killed in action'? --bodnotbod (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the crossmark is for people killed in action. Samsonov was not in combat when he died, and died by his own hand. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We should probably change it then Benica11 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Battle of Tannenberg. Favonian (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Battle of Tannenberg (1914) → Battle of Tannenberg – The earlier battle also known by this name is called the Battle of Grunwald on Wikipedia, so this battle is the primary meaning, the earlier battle should remain a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Googling "Battle of Tannenberg" -wikipedia suggests that this battle is primary. Even if it wasn't, the fact that Wiki doesn't have another article named "Battle of Tannenberg" is reason enough to drop the disambiguator. Kauffner (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense.VolunteerMarek 18:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

German prisoners?

No figure is given for German prisoners taken. Does their large number of MIA (Missing in Action) indicate captives? Valetude (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Proofs

Samsonov's Second Army had been almost annihilated: 92,000 captured, 78,000 killed or wounded and only 10,000 (mostly from the retreating flanks) escaping.

Who's fantasies are this? Nor German, nor Russian sources have such ridiculous numbers