Wikipedia:Peer review/Second Battle of Kharkov/archive1

Second Battle of Kharkov
I went through this process because it was suggest to me, however, I'm looking more for a peer review than a possible nomination, although if it was nominated that would be great as well. Nonetheless, I want to politely ask if those that have time can review the article and correct any grammar and spelling mistakes, as well as accuracy. Thank you for your time; I truly appreciate it. JonCatalan 03:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done a light copyedit and spell check of the article. It looks good, though it strikes me as being a bit wordy (since this is my own writing style, it is hard for me to edit it effectively! ;-) There are plenty of assertions that really ought to be backed up by proper footnoting; the references are good but not extensive, if I were you I would also look to any available reputable online sources as well. A few other largely minor points:

Hope that helps. Keep up the great work! Captmondo 16:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the General von Richthofen you mention at one point Wolfram von Richthofen? If so, please Wikilink.
 * 2) I couldn't understand what you were trying to say in this line "The same arguments applied by Geoffrey P. Megargee in his book, Inside Hitler's High Command, which were directed to Germany's generals can be used in Soviet memoirs describing the battle." I tried to understand it in the context of that paragraph, but either I am dim or some additional context is needed or its meaning needs further clarification. There were a few other sentences like this in the article, which is why I think a more ruthless editor than myself is required. ;-)
 * 3) I don't have the book, but I find it interesting that the photos that you use are available for use at the express wish of the author. This will come under closer scrutiny if you decide to make this a Feature article candidate, so you may need to bolster this further by adding more info to the images with regards attribution. You might also want to see if there are Red Army photos available online, as they would be free to use.
 * 4) Many former battlefields have become the source of archeological digs of late. Has any been conducted of this particular battlefield (and if so, did it turn up any new information?)
 * 5) I note from doing a casual search on Google that this battle is the source of a board game. For completeness sake this ought to be  mentioned.

Response:' Yes, you are correct, and I will link to Wolfram von Richthofen's article immediately, as well as provide the full name. As for the reference to Megargee, I should probably just reword the entire sentence and take out the reference to his name. As for the images, you are absolutely correct, and I'll have to work that out. As for anything online, a lot of links refer either to the Third Battle of Kharkov, or have the two mixed up - that board game is an example. It explains the Second Battle of Kharkov as what is normally regarded as the third (Manstein's recapture of the city in 1943). As for the rest, I'll get to work immediately, and I really appreciate it. Thank you for helping me out! JonCatalan 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Love the article and the subject. Wish I knew more and could help write not edit (nit-pick). These are just comments. Wendell 04:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki stuff
 * 1) Is there a wiki-link to Winter Counteroffensive? Perhaps a sub-section of the Battle of Moscow
 * 2) Article says seven local offensives.   Any wiki-links?
 * 3) Article links to razputitsa. Is that the same as Rasputitsa?
 * 4) Article discusses Operation Blue and Battle of Stalingrad differently, but wiki-links them to same article.
 * 5) Article says Most military historians have implied that the Soviet Army of 1942 was not prepared to conduct major offensive was not prepared to conduct major offensive operations against the well-trained German Army. Obviously needs a cite
 * 6)  Article includes a picture includes a T-34, with the statement "Not at Karkov."  Why include it?

Big comments: Sentence by sentence breakdowns.
 * 1) First time I really read this article and tried to understand the battle.  I knew Kharkov was a great victory for Germany, but did not know the details.  Spent some time on this article, know alot more.  But the article needs work.
 * 2) I got really confused about progression of the battle in days.  I think the article skips around time.  Would suggest sub-sections for each day or group of days.  See Operation Market Garden
 * 3) North vs South aspects of the battle.  Needs clarity, see notes below.
 * 4) Encirclements.  Were the Soviets trying to encircle Kharkov, and were in turn encircled?  Is it ever said so clearly?  Why else did the Soviets have a North and South attack?
 * 5) Beevor puts Soviet losses in terms of prisoners as 240,000   .... around 207,000, both killed and captured   How do these numbers compare to the committed Soviet forces?
 * 6) Conclusion section addresses the big picture.  Perhaps add an Aftermath section to address unit condition, size/shape of front, time to re-fit, or something.
 * 7) Last sentence of opening paragraph:  2nd Kharkov opened the path for the eventual operations which led to the Battle of Stalingrad and Operation Blue  2nd Kharkov ended 28 May, Operation Blue started 28 June, Just a month later.  Sentence seems to imply something different, longer time delays, additional operations, or something.
 * 1) Article says Although Timoshenko had limited success at Smolensk a year earlier, his attempts would ultimately lead to the disaster which Smolensk is now known to be.  Battle of Smolensk (1941) says nothing of the sort, but discusses a hard fought action.
 * 2) Is it fair or POV to compare the Soviet's one of seven local engagements which became a campaign around Kharkov  versus Germany's massive effort to reinforce...the major area of operations for the German strategic summer campaign of the year.    Based upon these phrases alone, it is clear that the Soviet's efforts were doomed.  Worthwhile discussing?  Why did the Germans not do better?  Or am I missing something, and the article needs expansion?
 * 3)  Article says The Soviet forces faced massive resistance from the opposing German defenses, which was slowly knocked out by concentrated air raids and artillery strikes, along with coordinated ground assaults against fortified positions.    Who was knocked out, Soviet forces or German defenses?
 * 4)  The attack started 12 May:    lets keep track of the days, and South vs North
 * 5) The first two paragraphs seem to discuss the North Soviet attack.  I did not know that until the third paragraph starting talking about the South Soviet attack.
 * 6) Soviets inched forward ...    By day's end (12 May) the greatest penetration by Soviet forces was ten kilometers.    Is this a statement of fact, or evidence of a poor attack?  Its important later, when the Germans crush and move 10km forward.
 * 7) The day also saw.....the release of three German infantry divisions and a single Panzer division for use in the defense of Kharkov.    Bock had warned Paulus not to counter-attack ....although this was later reconsidered when the Soviets broke through the Volchansk area.
 * 8) I have lost the logical connection.  Did all this happen on Day One?
 * 9) Was Kharkov threaten by a 10km advance?  Is the break thru at Volchansk consistent with 10km?
 * 10) Or is the article skipping around days?  Why is Volchansk never mentioned again?
 * 11) The first 72 hours (12 May thru 14 May?) saw a battering of the German Sixth Army, with 16 battalions destroyed. Paulus called for a series of holding actions, although the Germans still preformed localized counter-attacks. By 14 May Stavka's army had made impressive gains while German actions in certain areas had taken their toll, and several shaken Soviet divisions were forced to withdraw from their attacks. Only Soviet tanks, held in reserve, were able to put a stop to the German counter-attacks, with much loss of life.
 * 12) Now I am really confused.  The first 72 hours ... seemed to have jumped forward in time.
 * 13) Paulus called for holding actions, although Germans still executed local counter-attacks.  Only Soviet reserve tanks were able to stop the German counter-attacks.  Are these German counter attacks the localized ones of the previous sentence, or the one Bock warned Paulus about in the last paragraph.
 * 14) On 14 May the Germans continued to pound Soviet positions in the north, exploiting the gains they had made on 13 May
 * 15) Skipping back in time....
 * 16) What gains did the German make on 13 May?  Did they move forward, or just destroy attacking Soviet forces?
 * 17) By the end of the day (14 May, I guess from 4 sentences ago) the 28th Army could no longer operate in an offensive manner against German positions.   So the Soviets were still attacking until then?  What were the German gains on 13 May?
 * 18)  Aided greatly from air support, Kleist was able to crush Soviet positions and advanced up to ten kilometers in the first day of the attack.   Same 10km advance, but this sounds positive, while the 10km Soviet day one advance sounded negative.  Any reason?  POV?  differences in terrain?
 * 19)  By the end of 24 May the Russian forces had been successfully surrounded by German formations   Which Russian forces?  The original discussion of Six Armies under two Fronts?  Some sub-set?

Response: I linked to the winter counteroffensive, as suggested. Any wiki-links to the local offensives will have to come later, when I have more times to search around for them. The rasputitsa link fixed, and Stalingrad is considered part of Operation Blue, but in all actuality Operation Blue did not envision an investment of Stalingrad under weeks after the operation began. The only reason they link to the same article is because there is discussion on the merging of the two, and most historians consider Stalingrad as Blue because it was, without a doubt, the largest sector of the offensive. As for the sentence in question, I fixed it up a bit because referencing to a multitude of books, at least IMHO, would not be effective, so I offered some justification. As for pictures, frankly, I don't have enough pictures; the two I have relevent to the battle I fear I will have to take off and ask them to get deleted, because there will be copyright issues; so the faster those pictures are replaced the better; unless, I'm wrong. There aren't many photographs of the battle that are open, and I so the only thing I can do is put up images of slightly relevent topics, although they were not directly in Kharkov at the time...unless, there's a better idea, which there most likely is.

Now, for the big comments. An encirclement would certainly be a welcomed thought for the Soviets, but the pincering of an area doesn't necessarilly imply that the original expected outcome was a full fledge encirclement, although many times it does end as such. But taking an enemy on on both flanks is a sound idea, as opposed to only one, where the enemy can simply move reinforces from the opposite location; in other words, it's an alternate to hitting piecemeal, IMO. As for the casualties, I don't know if comparison to the men originally introduced into the battle would help the issue; Beevor has been accused of POV in his books, at least where anti-communism is concerned, while Glantz is reknown for his use of Soviet archives, although there are a lot who doubt his figures as well - unfortunately, them two are the only sources I have that have pin pointed casualties enough to be of any service; although I certainly do have other sources, they don't go into too much depth. Finally, the German counter-attack on the 17th did introduce a final German push into the Izium salient, which would eventually open the path for Operation Blue; undoubtfully, the loss of so much personnel in May was a major reason why the Germans found it so easy to rip through the Soviet frontlines upong the launching of Operation Blue, and that's what I tried to imply. As for organizing the artile a bit better, I'll work on that - give me the weekend to finish it all up.

Now, for the sentence by sentence breakdown; I don't know where the author got those numbers. According to The German Army, by Matthew Cooper, and most other sources I have, the Germans claimed around 100,000 dead by the end of 1941, which seems different from the 250,000 claimed by the artile at Smolensk. Although not all of those were implied dead - rather casualties - you could only assume that at least 1/3 of those were deaths, which certainly seems to high. As far as I'm concerned Smolensk was a debacle for the Red Army, where they faced the crushing of their defense of Moscow. In fact, it's argued by more than one author that Moscow would have fallen had the Germans not stopped and instead sent their strength north and south [to Leningrad and Kiev, respectively]. I would certainly not doubt that strength of Soviet resistance, but I don't think the fact that they had suffered a major defeat can ever be forgotten. Nonetheless, I will change the wording a bit.

Well yes, in retrospect it is obvious that the Soviets were doomed. The Russians thought that the major offensive would occur against Moscow, as opposed to Stalingrad or the Caucasus, and so naming the battle as a local counteroffensive for the Soviets and a major effort for the Germans is not really a POV issue, as far as I see. It's just different perspective from two different sides; I don't think the Soviets ever envisioned that the 6th Army would be so reinforced. Nor did Timoshenko, as outlined by the article, even know about Operation Frederikus, which was ironically, the German operation to destroy the very salient he attacked out of. In other words, the Germans were prepared to strike for an opening blow against the Soviets, which would straighten the front for the eventual launching of Blue; the Soviets did not see their operation as the preamble of what would lead into a major summer offensive, AFAIK.

German defenses were knocked out; sorry for that terrible mistake. Was is now changed to were.

This next sentence quoted refers to the fighting. As far as written sources put it, the German resistance was brutal, as opposed to Soviet resistance on the 17th of May. I can reword the sentence and attribute less POV, which is what I think you're implying. Well actually, now that I look at it, it seems you took it out of context. The "inched foward" refers to Soviet movement of second echelon troops, not to offensive movements. In fact, this is what the entire quote should be, "The fighting was so fierce that the Soviets inched forward their second echelon formations, preparing to throw them into combat as well. Fighting was particularly atrocious near the Russian village of Nepokrytaia, where the Germans launched three local counterattacks.  By day's end the greatest penetration by Soviet forces was ten kilometers." I don't see any POV issues over the penetration ranges; it simply states the greatest penetration of Soviet forces; whether the penetration was good or bad can be considered irrelevent; what is relevent is that they has suffered so many casualties, and were facing so much resistance, that they thought the slow movement of their reserves was necessary.

For the next sentence, I think it was use of two sources, which may use different names. I'll have to take tomorrow after class, and this weekend, to work around and edit that, as well as reordering the sequence of battle, and perhaps making more subsections for the battle.

For the next sentence, "The first 72 hours saw a battering of the German Sixth Army, with 16 battalions destroyed," is the topic sentence. The rest of the paragraph explains the sequence of battle for the next 72 hours. The counter-attacks stopped refer to the localized counter-attacks, which I guess I need to establish, although I assumed that it would be understood since the sentence comes right after the sentence which explains the localized counter-attacks. But, I'll change it.

For point #5, I changed the sentence around a bit. I admit, I re-read it and was confused myself. I think I meant the localized-offensives and upon rereading it that's what makes the most sence, so I reworded it a bit to make more sense, although I figure that it'll make even more sense once I finish any reorganization of the article. Point #6 I think deals with the same, so I hope that answered that question as well. As for point #7 I think I answered that before. I said the greatest Soviet advance was 10kms deep, and then this was later illustrated as a spectacular gain,; "By 14 May Stavka's army had made impressive gains", although now that I read it, even that's confusing...so I just reworded that as well.

And finally, point #8. Yes, the Russian forces sorrounded refer to Russian forces that had partaken in the offensive and were in the salient at that time. I guess I have to underscore that as well.

So, you can't begin to believe how much this criticism helped, and by the end of this weekend I hope to have worked out the major problems outlined by your review. If anybody has any information on pictures, I would love to hear it. But, if I can ask that all further review can be held until I finish with the reorganization to avoid flooding this with commentary while I work on the article. I'll leave a message here when I'm finished. Again, thank you a lot!

- JonCatalan 00:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Subheaders
I corrected several links for Russian generals, corrected Ewald von Kleist's name and link. The action has been broken into several subsections. I tried to use my judgement as to where the action changed from one side to another. I rather like how it's turned out. Cheers, Guapovia 16:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Thanks a lot; you don't understand how much work you saved me! It looks rather good, and again, thank you!  JonCatalan 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)