Jump to content

Talk:Defense of Brest Fortress

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDefense of Brest Fortress was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 19, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Brest Fortress in Belarus was belatedly honoured by the USSR as a Hero Fortress in 1965 for its resistance to the Nazi invasion in 1941?

Soviet gulags

[edit]

I checked the refs and none of them talk about the mass imprisonment of all Soviet survivors of the siege and having them sent to "Gulags". BTW, what are the "Gulags" anyway. There is only a confirmed story on major Gavrilov. Most of the refs do not even mention the battle and its survivors. What they make up is a random collection of books that say that Soviets imprisoned the Red Army POW's upon their release. While true, this is not relevant to this particular battle as none of the refs speak about the battle itself or its survivors.

Please do not twist facts, and do not use the article on a specific historic battle as a coatrack to wear other stuff. There are dedicated articles on cruelties of Stalinism. Piotrus reverted me twice. Instead of carrying on his revert war, I tagged the section. I expect the tag to remain until this issue is resolved. --Irpen 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: by default, Soviet soldiers who became German prisoner of wars went immediately after being "freed" to Gulags (provided several refs for that). Fact: any survivors of the siege would be Soviet soldiers who became German prisoners of war. The case of Gavrilov is the proverbial icing of the cake. Fact: Solzhenicyn writes: "In the post-Stalin epoch, when the defenders of Brest were no longer classified as traitors to the Motherland (all who capitulated had automatically been branded as such". Fact: Traitors to the Motherland, if they were not executed, went to Gulags. Hence, if you want to prove that defenders of the fortress did not go to Gulag, you have to provide sources that say so (and that major Gavrilov was an exception, not the rule), since all the other evidence indicates indicate they went to Gulag. This fact further explains why (as Solzhenicyn noted) the story of the fortress was not well researched until 1950s-60s (when the survivors were let out of the gulags and could have been questioned by the historians). This is important to the article, and is not used to criticize Stalinism or Russia, not more than the very story of the heroic defense is used to glorify it. Perhaps something in the section needs to be rewritten to be more clear, but I don't see what is so problematic here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What here, besides Gavrilov, is directly related to Brest? All this general stuff cannot be added to each and every article about the war. There are dedicated articles for that. This is WP:COATracking. And, again, you remove tags unilaterally without waiting for me to respond. Anyway, now this coatracking is marked. --Irpen 00:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained above, the imprisonment of Brest defenders survivors has crucial implications to why the story of the fortress was not told or researched till 1960s. Historiography of this event seems quite relevant to me. If it does not reflect nicely on the image of the SU, I am sorry, but we cannot hide the unpleasant facts. Or pleasant. As I said, one could also criticize this article for recreating one of the legends of the Patriotic War. I do however note that you have no objections along that line? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not concerned about the image of the SU. Please don't invoke frivolous arguments. I see no reference of the imprisonment of Brest defenders except for one person. The rest is an arbitrary picked soapbox of quotes from books where Brest is not even mentioned. --Irpen 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, no need for sarcastic edit summaries. Just find sources confirming mass-imprisonment of Brest defenders by the Soviets and we would then move to discussion how to present it here. So far, there is only one confirmed imprisonment. --Irpen 01:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided six or so refs that all Soviet POWs were subject to that fate. For the third and last time, feel free to show me a source that claims Brest garrison was an exception to that rule. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, you may be a good historian and everything but your own logical derivations belong to your own works that you would have to publish outside of this project. Once they are subjected to the peer-reviewing by the scholarly community or otherwise meet the reliability threshold, we would use them here. So far the info about the mass imprisonment of Red Army POW's of the Brest Siege by the Soviets is not found in any sources and belongs only to realm of your own logical reasoning. This alone is not enough to add it to the article. --Irpen 02:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In the course of a conversation over naming conventions for Soviet units, Piotrus asked me to provide some input here. I believe that specific sources for the contention that all released Soviet POWs were sent to the GuLags (GuLAGs?) belong at that article or others that deal with that issue. I also believe that one would need a specific source, saying that all Soviet survivor POWs of the Brest siege went to the gulags before one could insert that statement in the article. Perhaps a compromise might be to say something like:
'There are numerous sources which document that all surviving Soviet POWs were immediately sent, on their release into Soviet custody, to the Main Administration of Corrective Labour Camps. This makes it likely that all or virtually all the Soviet survivors of the Brest siege were sent there upon release. However, there have been no specific sources uncovered saying that all the Soviet POWs who survived the Brest siege were indeed sent to the gulags.' Buckshot06 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possible line of compromise; do note that the current text does not assert that all were sent but only 'most', and we have an example of the most famous of the survivors, Gavrilov, being sent to a Gulag.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current text's assertion about "most" is unsourced just as much as the "all" claim would have been. It is derived by the Wikipedian and not found anywhere outside of this editor's line of thought. Gavrilov is a specific case and that he is an 'example' of what happened to the rest of the defenders is, again, nothing but a Wikipedian's assertion, hence OR.

The text proposed by Buckshot is fact-based and does not contradict any sources. Note, however, that the same exact text can be added word for word into any article about other Soviet defeats in the beginning of the war. If sources don't mention something it simply means that such stuff does not belong to the encyclopedic article. If we instead add to the article a statement that "according to the sources there is no indication that something happened, this is just undue weight.

Not a single source devoted to the battle writes anything about this issue. Fishing around for off-topic sources to pull in some quotes that would help insert one's own pet issue into the article is POV-pushing in the most blunt form. --Irpen 18:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided several sources that all POWs were affected. You have not provided any source to the contrary (as usual). Until you do so, the current version is much less ORish that your claims to otherwise. That's all there is to it, no matter how many times you will ignore my post and repeat your unsourced claims.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which way is my claim ORish? Also, I note that unhappy with the first outside opinion you received you went on to canvass for more. Sigh. I am tired of this and I am adding a note at the DYK page because, from my past experience, the next step you will undertake, is look for someone who would remove the tag for you to "save" on your own revert count. --Irpen 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your success rate at DYK fightning is 0%, but I have to admire you for never giving up. You know, it would really, really help you if one of those days you would find a reference backing your claim. Removal of referenced text and tag warring will not take you far.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comnment on the nonsense part but as for references, all your questions have been answered. This is a mix of OR, irrelevancy and coatracking. I will wait for an independent observer, that is not brought in by your off- or on-line request, to opine, and will be very interested in an independent review. --Irpen 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I will file an RfC.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted a rewrite to address these issues; there's no direct evidence that all the defenders were sent to the gulag, but there's certainly evidence that their commander was. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mackensen. I have no objection against the inclusion of indeed referenced fate of the commander. However, as of now, 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC), the article again speaks about the general fate of Brest survivors, an unsourced claim that is derived by a Wikipedia editor based on his synthesis of sources and his own logic. I left the info about Gavrilov without any objections but marked the reintroduced general claim as uncited. --Irpen 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Is the fate of Soviet defenders relevant or off-topic?

[edit]

The RfC question does not reflect the matter of the dispute. The latter is, can one add the self-invented general fate of the Brest survivors to an article while sources only exist for a single survivor. --Irpen 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

80% of Soviet POWs shared that fate ([1]), and as you concede, so did the most illustrious of the Brest defenders, major Gavrilov. This is hardly OR; unless you can provide a single ref that other Brest survivors were exception to the rule, their fate is quite obvious.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR is deriving the fate of Brest defenders from the general data. We have no sources with any info on the fate of the Brest defenders. That such imprisonments were common in general belongs to the general articles about the phenomenon, rather than being pasted into each and every article about the narrow battles of the war. --Irpen 06:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it seems to me to be quite relevant to all discussion of Soviet POWs. Thank you for pointing that out; I will certainly have to go and see if it indeed does not need to be linked to from other similar articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this seems like rapid deterioration of common sense. Did not you oppose the guy for adding Homophobia in Poland section to where it did not belong? Anyway, I will deal with this spree you threaten to undertake only when you undertake it. I suggest you take a cup of tea first. Maybe you would change your mind. --Irpen 07:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, unlike that editor you mention I have no intentions of adding that article to Russia or even Soviet Union.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "worried", Piotrus. Anyway, this threatened disruption will be a subject of this discussion when the threat gets implemented.

As for this article, I think Mackensen's compromise is a good idea. I left the info about Gavrilov untouched (I never objected to its inclusion. I removed, however, the sentence about the general fate of Soviet POW's. This has no direct relation to Brest. No more than an opinion of Gross about antisemitism amon the Poles belongs to an article about every Polish person.

If this is not reinserted, I have no objections to dyk featuring. --Irpen 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant, as it explains WHY he was subject to imprisonment. It's no different from linking to Holocaust when discussing a death of a Jew murdered by Nazis in the WWII.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another falsehood

[edit]

The same section claims that GSE speaks about "months" and that it says "great heroes stopped the movement of an entire German division".

It is easy to check what the GSE says:

"Почти месяц герои Б. к. сковывали целую немецкую дивизию" which means: "For almost a month the heroes of the B.F. contained the attack of the whole German division"

Note the difference between "months" and "almost a month", "great heroes" vs "heroes" and "contained the attacks" vs "stopped the movement". We may disagree how important and how large this falsehood is, but why is it there in the first place? --Irpen 03:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blame the Polish wiki for inaccurate translation. If I knew Russian I could have verified it myself. Could you provide the link to the GSE article? PS. Don't hesitate to reference it and update the translation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to touch the section until the main problem is resolved. I will edit other sections though. --Irpen 04:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at least provide a link to the GSE article you cite, I only get 1 ru wiki and 2 forums for it ([2]).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Piotrus! There's another inaccuracy in the article. Sergei Smirnov first published his essay "A Fortress over the Bug River" and a number of articles on Brest defenders in 1955. In 1957, he published "A Fortress at the Frontier" and "A Fortress over the Bug River" as separate books, which would become a part of his larger book "Fortress of Brest" that he kept working on. In 1964, "Fortress of Brest" came out in full. Officially, it was considered "an extended edition". KNewman (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was it published, or just written and shelved until later? I find it possible that after Stalin's death it would be publishable, but the source clearly states "The story of the heroic defense of the border fortress of Brest, for example, was permitted to appear in in book form only in 1964".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, KNewman, I addressed this in #Another piece of nonsense section below. Amazingly, the claim about "1964" is "referenced to a Western Source", so it "must be reliable". This is actually what happens when the artilces get written based on a combination of translation of unreferenced stuff from pl-wiki and google-booking. More thorough approach of reading a single book on topic and proceeding from there takes more time, you know. --Irpen 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inscriptions

[edit]

While copy-editing I ran across this:

During the last days, the inscriptions were made by the last defenders. They said: "We'll die but we'll not leave the fortress". "I'm dying but I won't surrender. Farewell, Motherland. 20.VII.41."

I re-worded as this:

During the last days, the remaining defenders made inscriptions on the walls. They said: "We'll die but we'll not leave the fortress". "I'm dying but I won't surrender. Farewell, Motherland. 20.VII.41."

Trouble is, I don't know if that's what happened. There's no specific source for this event; I'm guessing walls because "inscriptions" are made on something, and they were holed up in a cellar. Someone who knows the full story might need to correct this; the earlier phrase "the inscriptions" implies something specific or notable. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the source for the inscriptions is here; they were in the old version of the article at Brest Fortress before I created this subarticle, and I decided to leave most of them here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official Russian sources

[edit]

I looked through a couple of Russian language sources at the bottom of this article.

First, the timeframe. Last defenders tried to make a breakthrough on July 5, although the fortress was taken earlier (Russian text: "Одним из последних участков обороны в Цитадели было здание церкви. По воспоминаниям защитника крепости М.И. Мясникова, 5 июля он с товарищами обнаружил в её подвале трёх обессилевших бойцов, которые присоединились к ним для прорыва из крепости." [3]. So, this lasted less than two weeks, not a month, according to Russian sources.
Second, all Russian sources tell that "many" or "a lot of" (I did not find how many) defenders survived, were taken prisoners, spent time in German camps, and returned back. So far, I found nothing about their further fate in Russian sources. One have to look for more sources and check this.Biophys (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 120 people tried to breakthrough on June 26, some were killed; others taken prisoners by Germans in the same day. After that just a few hide in the fortress. (Утром 26 июня группа прорыва пробилась из Цитадели на Кобринское укрепление, а затем с большими потерями вышла из крепости. Вечером на северо-восточной окраине г. Бреста уцелевшие натолкнулись на фашистские танки и оказались в плену.)Biophys (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I cannot read Russian, I would certainly appreciate any corrections you'd like to make to the main article. As for English sources, the best and longest description I found comes from Constantine Pleshakov, Stalin's Folly: The Tragic First Ten Days of World War II on the Eastern Front, Houghton Mifflin Books, 2005.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not that familiar with the subject. Article in Russian WP seems to be fair. Based on various Russian sources (not propaganda), this looks as follows: Soviet forces in the fortress: 8,000 (not 3,000!) soldiers and officers, plus ~300 families of officers. Fortress was taken after a massive bombardment on June 30. Germans reported on June 30 that they took around 7,000 POWs including ~100 officers; German losses 482 killed and ~1,000 injured (various info with a few references was summarized here [4], although this is not a reliable source by itself). Article in Russian WP also tells that all organized resistance ended on June 30, although some groups continued to emerge from the ruins during next week (29-30 июня был предпринят непрерывный двухдневный штурм крепости, в результате которого немцам удалось овладеть штабом Цитадели и взять в плен Зубачева и Фомина (Фомин, как комиссар, был выдан одним из пленных и немедленно расстрелян; Зубачев впоследствии умер в лагере). В тот же день немцы овладели Восточным фортом. Организованная оборона крепости на этом закончилась; оставались лишь изолированные очаги сопротивления (сколько-нибудь крупные из них были подавлены в течение следующей недели) и одиночные бойцы, собиравшиеся в группы и вновь рассеивавшиеся и погибавшие, либо пытавшиеся прорваться из крепости и уйти к партизанам в Беловежскую пущу (некоторым это даже удалось).Biophys (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pleshakov specifically noted that part of the garrison managed to abandon the fortress when the attack started, and when the siege started a few hours later, only about 3,500 were present inside. The garrison seemed to have been strengthened previously (there were speculations along the line of 'Stalin planned to invade Germany' and 'Brest Fortress was a great base of operations for an invasion'; it is certainly plausible its strenght was 8,000 when the invasion started).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use by propaganda

[edit]

The Polish wiki has an unreferenced claim (although possibly based on Russian sources that I have added to our external links) that Soviet propaganda exaggerated the lenght of the defense for up to two months or more, basically treating struggle of small units or individuals like Gavrilov as the organized defense of the fortress tying up significant German resources (when in fact the organized defense collapsed after one week). Could more references be found for this possibly controversial claim? PS. Claims of month-long organized defense are still repeated in modern Russian sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this episode is mostly notable as an example of Soviet propaganda. The propaganda-type sources, such as TASS, tell about 3,500 defenders and claim that resistance lasted for a month, although that was only a mop-up operation for Germans after June 30. I have not seen anything about two months.Biophys (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted claims from two months to a month, this seems much better referenced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narod.ru

[edit]

One quote references the reader to narod.ru. While the text seems to be written elsewhere and just copied to this site, I could not find a source. Narod.ru itself is the Russian varian of myspace. This particular quote is non-controversial and I believe is genuine, but we should still mark a ref to a self-publishing site until we can verify it elsewhere. --Irpen 18:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, found a better source myself. --Irpen 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another piece of nonsense

[edit]

...even if referenced. The article claims:

The story of the fortress defense was finally permitted to appear in book form in 1964;[12]

The major book on the subject, and what seems the main one on the subject the "western" source is referring to was the Sergey Smirnov's work "Brestskaya krepost". His book was in fact published in 1957 which you can easily verify by checking the LOC catalog: LCCN 58-27270. Moreover, most amazingly, it was simultaneously published in English under the title "Heroes of the Brest Fortress", LCCN 59-40301. I don't even know what to do with that. To leave the referenced bull just makes no sense. At the same time, I don't know whether replacing of 1964 by 1957 would be appropriate as this would be ORish. Could be there were books before that.

I am not sure how to proceed with this but the false claim should be out, referenced or not. --Irpen 19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Piotrus! There's another inaccuracy in the article. Sergei Smirnov first published his essay "A Fortress over the Bug River" and a number of articles on Brest defenders in 1955. In 1957, he published "A Fortress at the Frontier" and "A Fortress over the Bug River" as separate books, which would become a part of his larger book "Fortress of Brest" that he kept working on. In 1964, "Fortress of Brest" came out in full. Officially, it was considered "an extended edition". KNewman (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the obvious error as dubious but since Piotrus removed the tag I removed that nonsense as a whole and replaced with the link to the book, with the publication date, in LOC archives. --Irpen 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it published in Russia before 1964? It might have been published by an emigree press abroad, or as a samizdat, and the ref may refer to an official publication, and be just not very clear. PS. Certainly Sergei Smirnov could be disambiguated and perhaps stubbed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was published in by a major state publisher in Belarus. It would be more helpful, Piotrus, if you read talk page before editing. --Irpen 01:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere on this page is the word "Belarus" mentioned before you answered my question above. Can you give a reference for your claim? This seems not to contain any information on publisher, or country. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, Piotrus, LOC is based on dynamic urls. If you do a search for this book, from the catalog search page, you will find all the info. -Irpen

Additionally, the book was translated into English and published the same year in Moscow by the "Foreign Languages Publishing House" (1957). LCCN of the English version is 59040301. --Irpen 01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More: here is the quote from Torchinov and others, "Vokrug Stalina", Saint-Petersberg, 2000, ISBN 5846500056:

"С. Смирнов — автор пьес и киносценариев, документальных книг и очерков о неизвестных героях Великой Отечественной войны, в том числе «Брестская крепость» (1957 г.; расширенное издание — в 1964 г.),...До 1957 г. пресса и словом не обмолвилась о героизме защитников Брестской крепости..."

Translation:

"S. Smirnov, the author or plays, scripts as well as documentary literature about the unknown heroes of the GPW, including the "Brest Fortress" (1957, extended edition 1964)... Before 1957 the press never mentioned the heroism of the defenders of the B.F."

The "1957, extended edition 1964" probably explains the goof of your source but I cannot look in its author's head. --Irpen 02:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavrilov

[edit]

We could certainly use an article on Pyotr Gavrilov (why not Piotr Gavrilov?). Several references we have used discuss his fate ([5]); [6], [7]). There seem to be some confusion over when he was imprisoned in Gulag; two out of those three do not mention it. Nonetheless this source notes he was imprisoned for ten years. Perhaps there are some Russian sources for his bio that would contain more details? The above sources are non-contradictory, he might have not been imprisoned immediately, and he might have had time to settle or command the POW camp before or after.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the article the info from Smirnov that Gavrilov was in 1946 assigned to supervise the Japanese POW camp. You changed that unilaterally[8] to the claim that he was sent there after being released from "Gulag" where he spent "more years" than in Nazi camps. Where did you get the info on when he was assigned to the Japanese POW camp. Or were you trying to combine the self-contradictory info from different sources and "assumed" that the date in Smirnov is simply false? I thought that if we have contradictory refs, we should give both versions instead of ORishly combining them and "correcting" the years in sources such that the other source would look more plausible. My version of the article covered both version of events. But you, somehow, "corrected" one source to make its info fit the other one. I corrected the sourced year of his Japanese camp assignment (1946) and left your version unaltered. The section now contradicts itself as well as its own refs. --Irpen 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, there is no contradiction. Neither source is a full biography, and two simply omit the imprisonment part.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, but source says he was sent to supervise the POW camp in 1946! --Irpen 04:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which source? The 1946 is given here as 'he served in the army until 1946'. All would make sense if he was arrested and imprisoned for 10 years afterwards, now, wouldn't it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, look, let's just calmly resolve this. We have contradictory info on Gavrilov. One source says that upon his return after imprisonment he was assigned to supervise the POW camp in Far East. It goes further to tell that he clamp down on the prisoner abuse and malnutrition and received an award for that. The other source claims instead that upon release from Nazis he spent more years in Soviet imprisonment than in the Nazi one. It is obviously a contradiction since he spent 4 years in Nazi camps. This means that he could have been released from the Soviet prison only in 1950, the earliest. This is pure mathematics, however, Stalin only died in 1953 and this may have been till after his death.

I tried to include both versions but you tried to combine them. The combination simply contradicts sources. The info in these two sources is simply not compatible and cannot be "combined" but should rather be presented as two versions. Don't you agree? --Irpen 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, the versions can be combined; what is unclear is the order of events. Two sources note he was imprisoned; so it is quite certain he was. Whether he was the camp commander before or after is not clear. He was imprisoned for 10 years according to the latest source I provided, probably from 1946 to 1956; he was the camp commander probably from 1945 to 1946, but possibly later (there were Japanese prisoners in SU after 1956 too, IIRC). As I said, what we need is more sources to create a dedicated article, I'd expect there would be such sources in Russian - unfortunately I can't research in this language. If you are worried about this contradiction, perhaps you could research the issue and report on available sources in Russian regarding our major hero? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Piotrus, Smirnov says says that upon Gavrilov's return after Nazi imprisonment he was assigned to supervise the POW camp in Far East and he says that it happened in 1946. He goes further to tell that he clamp down on the prisoner abuse and malnutrition and received an award for that. The other source claims instead that upon release from Nazis "he spent more years in Soviet imprisonment than in the Nazi one". It is obviously a contradiction since he spent 4 years in Nazi camps. This means that he could have been released from the Soviet prison only in 1950, the earliest. This is pure mathematics, however, Stalin only died in 1953 and this may have been till after his death.

I tried to include both versions. This version of the article by me said:

Major Gavrilov... spent the rest of the war in the Nazi concentration camps and upon return in 1946 he was restored in the military rank but not in the party and assigned to the Russian Far East to supervise the internment camp for Japanese POWs. According to other sources he spent years in Siberia as a prisoner before being rehabilitated upon the Stalin's death and accorded the highest military decoration, the Hero of the Soviet Union.

You, by this edit, tried to "combine" incompatible info from two versions. Your edit said:

Major Gavrilov...spent more time in a Gulag than in the German POW camp, before being rehabilitated and accorded the highest military decoration, the Hero of the Soviet Union. Upon his release he was restored in the military rank but not in the party and assigned to the Russian Far East to supervise the internment camp for Japanese POWs.

The combination simply contradicts sources. Your version of him being sent to supervise POW camp "upon release" means that it cannot have taken place in 1946. The info in these two sources is simply not compatible and cannot be "combined" but should rather be presented as two versions. Why can't we do it? Why do you insist on the article either contradicting sources or itself? --Irpen 04:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

And now this by Tymek. Replaces my ref to Smirnov with "fact" tag, and replaced the year of Gavrilov's assignment (1946) with undefined and unreferenced "upon release". Why are you, people, doing this? --Irpen 04:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smirnov? In his 1957 book? Hardly suprising, see my comment here. Another falsehood by Soviet historiography (I have provided sources to show that imprisonment of former pows was denied by Soviets for a long period).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to know what you think. Your claim that Smirnov is wrong does not justify removing references to him. --Irpen 04:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does, per RS he is not reliable in such matters, as shown by the western reliable research I quoted above. Do note that the refs were not removed - only the controversial one, where Soviet sources have been shown to be unreliable. I don't contest that his book was published before 1964, and that refs is valid. Details of Gavrilov's life are true too, date is probably the only falsehood there. Are you sure you are citing him correctly, btw? Perhaps you could provide page number, original and translation of his claim that he started the new camp job in 1946? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I showed you how your "western" source goofed (1964 vs 1957 year of book date). Second, it is not up to you to decide which claim in the source is true and which is false. We have another "Western" source {Axell) that speaks about Japanese POW camp and not about imprisonment of Gavrilov. It is obviously contradictory. --Irpen 04:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That another book had an error on another topic is irrelevant. I've explained above that Axell is not contradictory as he gives no dates; the Japanese camp could have happened either in 1945-1946 or after 1965, which leaves 10 years for imprisonment (~double his German POW time), as indicated by two sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, Axell whore a book whose subject is Soviet heroes, had a dedicated section about Gavrilov and just "omitted" such crucial fact. Looks very plausible. --Irpen 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what happened. This explains why Tymek removed my ref. I did not notice that he also "restored" typos before my edits. He being to busy to edit properly, simply reverted my edit. Nice editing. --Irpen 04:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavrilov has an article on ru:Гаврилов, Пётр Михайлович; I used Babelfish to translate it, and the machine gibberish confirms my version (camp commander 1945-1946; imprisoned afterwards): "After release he is restored in the army and the previous title (but not in the party). In autumn 1945 the chief of camp for the Japanese prisoners of war in Siberia. In 1946 - lived on the native land, then according to official Soviet data moved to Krasnodar. Arrested "for the delivery into the captivity". After death of Stalin and his release finds his family, lost during the first day of war. This page mentions: " afterward release from the captivity and the repatriation in 1946, it became the prisoner OF GULAG to many years. Only after debunking of the personality cult of Stalin freedom arrived.". Imprisonment is also mentioned here: "Major Gavrilov, regiment-commander from the Brest fortress they sent to 10 years" and here: "Major p. M. Gavrilov, the courageous defender of Brest fortress... disappeared in the camps of archipelago gulag..." (ref: ADAP. Serie D. Bd 6/1, № 173, S. 228; ibid, Bd 6/2, № 389, S. 510; ibid, Serie E, Bd 1, № 51, S. 90.Письмо Альбрехта министру иностранных дел рейха (на нем. яз.), 1.8.1941, ПА МИД, Бонн, Акты Риттера, т. 29. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Russian wiki

[edit]
Piotrus, I looked the ru:wiki article. Here is what it says:
затем по официальным советским данным переехал в Краснодар, по другим данным — арестован и осужден «за сдачу в плен», в Краснодаре же поселился после смерти Сталина и своего освобождения
Translation: After that, accrdoing to official Soviet info moved to Krasnodar, according to other info was convicted "for surrendering" and moved to Krasnodar after the death of Stalin and release".
Same here, two conflicting versions presented in his article. I will do that exactly this way in Gavrilov article. Here, we should either mention the discrepancy (both versions) or not mention the controversy at all. Since he is not the subject of the article, I don't see a need for this elaboration but presenting this fairly without elaboration is impossible. --Irpen 21:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. As follows from the sources provided in Russian wiki, 'Gavrilov spent 10 years in Gulag, but his fate was distorted by the Soviet historiography such as book by Smirnov. We do not want such disinformation in WP.
  • Source 1 [9]. This is an interview in Echo of Moscow. One of this discussion participants is trying to whitewash the fact that many Russian POWs were sent to Gulag. Still, it is he who tells about Gavrilov in Gulag as an undisputable fact, an example that everyone knows about. He said: "Of course, there were exceptions like Gavrilov who was sent [to Gulag] for 10 years, but that was a poor job on the part of SMERSH". (Russian text: Были, конечно, исключения, когда того же майора Гаврилова, командира полка из Брестской крепости отправили на 10 лет, но это значит, органы контрразведки недоработали.).
  • Source 2. This scholarly Russian language source [10] also tells about Gavrilov as a classic case of a war hero sent to Gulag.
  • Source 3. [11], a Biography link provided in Russian wiki. It tells that Gavrilov was released only after death of Stalin (Russian: после освобождения из плена и возвращения на Родину в 1946 г., он стал узником ГУЛАГА на многие годы. Только после развенчания культа личности Сталина пришла свобода.). It is hard to imagine that Irpen did not look at this sources linked in Russian wiki article.Biophys (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, please ask me before "imagining" anything. I did not indeed click on the links in Russian wiki. I will investigate all of them for Gavrilov article. As for your sources, 1 is unacceptable. The oral quote of not even a scholar uttered in the interview is not a scholarly source. We use books for that. Source 2 is indeed a book. It speaks about the arrest but references the info to the same Albrecht's letter to the Foreign Minister of Reich that we discussed above. Source 3 has three versions of his biography of which one asserts the arrest and two others don't. --Irpen 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only source 1 is acceptable, but this is a notable source. The statement was made by Evgenii Kirichenko, a host of a program about WW II at Echo of Moscow, a military journalist, and author of book(s) about WW II. Statements made in interviews (say at CNN or Echo of Moscow) are acceptable per WP:Source. I said "hard to imagine" because you are a very experienced wikipedian. You know very well that an article in a wiki is not a valid source. So, I thought your checked the linked sources prior to making any statements above.Biophys (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. All old Soviet propaganda sources, such as book by Smirnov published in 1957 are unreliable sources. Are we going to use book "The secret war against Soviet Russia" published in 1930s? Of course we could, but only as a source about Soviet disinformation techniques.Biophys (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable news sites are indeed acceptable sources but on what they are universally expected to be good at, news and their analysis. I know that Wikipedia is not a valid source. I simply out of courtesy translated for Piotrus a fragment that his machine translated incorrectly. When I write an article on Gavrilov, I will use not the ru-wiki article, but its links. --Irpen 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with mentioning that official Soviet historiography distorted his fate, we can link to the academic publication which discussed falsehoolds in this area I linked yesterday.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AMong the sources that also "distorted" are the western sources as well. Why do you want to fork this discussion into this article in the first place? It is Gavrilov-issue and not simple enough to be condensed in one sentence as a side issue into the Brest article. This is very hard for me to understand. --Irpen 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should Gavrilov be noted at all? I think he is relevant 1) as a defender 2) as a receipent of awards for it and 3) as a receipent of punishment for it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we were so close to a compromise, Piotrus, yesterday. We were coming towards a mutually acceptable solution but today you decided for some reason to step away from a compromise. Again coatracked the text with the speculations about "unsuprising Soviet historiography", inserted one (of the two) version in the text back from the footnote. I thought we could work it out and have a mutually agreeable article on which I spent even a good time helping you develop it featured at DYK. I am very disappointed that you did not allow a compromise and restored the article to a disagreeable shape. --Irpen 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The historiography stuff was added because you kept trying to potray a single Soviet source as a counterbalance to modern reliable western research. We could remove the historiography part if you would stop disputing that Gavrilow spent 10 years in the Gulags, as not contradicted by all but one Soviet source.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, your statement is false and you know it. First, Smirnov's book does not whitewash Stalin's crimes. He plainly describes incarceration of other heroes, giving details on how they were pressured to sign false confessions. The account given by Smirnov is full of the authour's righteous rage about such treatment. You may ask Biophys to read the book (it is online) and to confirm how he describes the fates of other defenders. Second, there are Western sources, specifically devoted to Gavrilov's bio that for some reason omit such a prominent fact as "10 years in Gulag". No biographer who writes on the subject would ever omit such thing from the subject's biography. The info is clearly not clear cut. I don't understand your urge to have it in the main body. I suggest we return to the compromise. Mention that some defenders were indeed repressed and leave the details for the articles on the defenders. There is enough info on each of them available online that writing such articles is possible. Such compromise would in no way undermine the article's integrity as it would mention the outrageous issue itself undisputedly, that some heroic defenders of the country were abused by the Stalinist authorities. There isn't really much more needed to say in this article. --Irpen 05:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biographers ommission may be explained if they relied on Soviet censored of false sources. I am not insisting on adding details of Gavrilov's life here; I am however looking forward to your promised creation of his article where we will be able to flesh this issue out in detail.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this Russian source tells that many Fortress defenders were sent to Gulag after being POWs in Germany:

Их воинскую честь спас писатель Сергей Смирнов. Это он помогал бывшим заключенным, слушал их скупые рассказы и воссоздавал по деталям почти фантастическую историю. Только благодаря ему их все-таки признали героями. Реабилитировали.

Piotrus was right after all.Biophys (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section rewritten

[edit]

Ok, now, I've read the entire section of the book devoted to fighting and the fate of the heroes. Smirnov's research of survivors is very thorough and he located and interviewed many of them. He devotes a chapter to each survivor and describes with condemnation the imprisonment of some of them. He even goes on and describes how one survivor was given to sign a "confession" under false pretenses as if there is nothing incriminating there and pressured to sign a paper without reading. After he did, he was also sent to camps. The fate of individual people belongs to their respective articles. The stuff about general Soviet policies belongs elsewhere as well. I hope this version which sticks to facts will not be the subject of new revert wars. --Irpen 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an acceptable compromise? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. Why say "some sources". We can say, "according to Michael Parrish" and then add: However, other sources on Gavrilov's bio (Albert Axell and Sergei Smirnov) mention that after the war he was assigned to supervise the Japanese POW camp and have no information on his imprisonment. This would present the reader with both POV's and all the refs. Or, best, we can leave this stuff for gavrilov's article which I would write up tomorrow. --Irpen 08:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some indicates 'not all', which is indeed a bit weaselish, because it may readers to think there is a single source that states he was not imprisoned - while we only have sources that don't mention it. Nonetheless I think if Gavrilov is mentioned as the hero, his rewards for it - both the medals and the imprisonment - should be mentioned. If you don't like 'some', please provide sources that state he was NOT imprisoned. If we find a source he attended a school in Leningrad, for example, that does not contradict the other sources, nor does it mean he never did anything else in his life, you know :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please stop this ad naseum talk about my "not like". I like. Can we move on from my likings? If there is a source that significantly elaborates on his bio, in fact has a whole section on it, and this source does not know about imprisonment, than there is clearly a contradiction. The source about him cannot list all hewasnots. You argue with the point that if one thing about him is mentioned, something else has to be mentioned to. Note, that we can bypass this whole argument and not discuss the bio of a specific person at all. In his article we would mention both versions. Here I think we do not need to go into this. You persisted with saying he was imprisoned. I tried to remove off-topic stuff. You persisted again. Then I added the alternative version to avoid the distorting view that this is undisputable. Than it got unwieldy and I rewrote the whole thing keeping his bio stuff away for a separate article. You still persisted in reinserting one side of the story. It is either both or none. Both, I think is worse because it requires too much detail (elaborate on all sources) which is best done in a dedicated article. So, I suggest we keep this issue out. --Irpen 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

I am just asking myself whether "Siege of Brest (1941)" is the most appropriate name for this article. To begin with, there are quite a few places called Brest, notably in France (which was also the site of a major battle in WWII). Secondly, my understanding is that this locality was known as Brest-Litovsk in the time period in question. Thirdly, I am asking myself whether "Siege" is the best description, given that the Germans appear to have basically breached the fortress within a few days. So I am thinking that something along the lines of "Battle of Brest-Litovsk (1941)" would be a more accurate title. Any comments? Gatoclass (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, maybe Siege of the Brest Fortress or Battle of the Brest Fortress? I don't recall seeing Litvsk in this context, it seems to be all Brest or Brest Fortress.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defence of Brest Fortress? --Irpen 07:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brest is indeed false. It is not about the city but about the fortress. I would like to reiterate my proposal to move to Defense of Brest Fortress (1941). Objections? --Irpen 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok with me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Defense of the Brest Fortress would be good.Biophys (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like some weird game for a porno film, Biophys; not a good suggestion! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brest-Litovsk is quite clear to me, it might help to disambiguate the topic in the title. —PētersV (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Defense of Brest Fortress/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


Good article nomination on hold

[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 1, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  1. The lead is short. See:WP:LS.
  2. The siege is a long section. Due to the fact that it's the main part of the article, I suggest breaking it to several sub-sections. For example you can divide it into The first day, Resistance and Fall of the fortress.
  3. The result of the resistance should not be in Hero fortress section. I think there should be separate section for this issue:The resilience of the fortress defenders did not significantly affect the German early successes as the Wermacht fast advance into the Soviet territory proceeded largely according to the German plan leaving the fighting fortress well behind the front line.[4] The Soviet General Staff, however, realized the importance of fiercely defending towns and villages on the way of the enemies advance as evidenced in its November note.[4]
2. Factually accurate?:
  • Infobox:
  1. Contradiction between Russian casualties in infobox and body of the article: It's written in infobox that just 400 soldiers of USSR had been captured while the text says:The initial bombardment took the unprepared fortress by surprise, inflicting heavy material and personnel casualties.[7] or n June 26 the Soviet forces tried to break out from the siege but were unsuccessful and sustained heavy casualties.
  2. It's written in infobox that the defense ended on June 30 but the text contradicts with it:Major Pyotr Gavrilov, one of the best known defenders of Brest (later decorated for it as Hero of the Soviet Union) was captured only on July 23.[9][10][8] There were reports that isolated defenders were weeded out by Germans as late as in August.[10]
    It has been described as endnote. I propose merging it in the body.
  • Opposing forces
  1. It's written:The 3,500-strong defending force comprised regular soldiers, border guards and NKVD men.[4]... up to a total of 7 to 8 thousand people... There were also 300 families of servicemen inside as well. I checked the sources.[12],[13] There are different speculation. Apparently the late is more definite. Thus I propose clarifying the issue. Another source says On the night of the attack there were 7000-8000 men from various units including personnel of the garrison hospital and medical unit. More over the families - wives and children - of the servicemen were inside the fortress.[14]
    I found it has been described as endnote. It's a good way to clarify the infobox but the body of the article has remained unclear. I propose merging it in the body.
  • Add sources: There are several citation needed tag on the article. Please add reliable sources instead.
3. Broad in coverage?:
  1. I think there should be a section which describes Brest Fortress, its strategic importance, its structure, etc in brief.
4. Neutral point of view?:
  1. Hero Fortress is a title for propaganda. It should be substituted with more neutral one.
5. Article stability?: Pass
6. Images?:

There are many pictures which you can use in the article.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. Thank you for your work so far.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

Failed "good article" nomination

[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 7, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail
2. Factually accurate?: Fail
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail
4. Neutral point of view?: Fail
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?:


When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Article Text

[edit]

Someone on WP:AFC submitted an article on this topic. It wasn't used because this article exists but some it may be a useful addition. It is located at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-07-24#Defense_of_Brest_Fortress.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Attempt to Minimise Heroism

[edit]

So the battle only took one week according to the intro? Then later we have this sentence:

The only documentary proof of resistance after June 29, 1941, is a report that states a shoot-out on July 23, 1941, with the subsequent capture of a Soviet "Oberleutnant" the next day.

Which is almost a month later!!! The inscription is simply presumed to be fake, even though it is hard to deny ongoing resistance given the above.

I think it would be more truthful to say that the Soviet accounts says 1 month (and here's the evidence), but some sceptics claim it was week (and here's the evidence).--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word 'sceptics' has unwarranted negative implications, especially considering that the opposing data is Soviet? As for the inscription, its referenced and filmed (and given a slightly different translation) in episode 1 of the documentary 'The Unknown War' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unknown_War_%28documentary%29) at around 37 minutes123.3.181.200 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)123.3.181.200 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)5hifty[reply]

Finding one, two, or twenty a month after the battle doesn't mean the battle was still going on. Germany essential declared it secure after a hard fought week of battle. Some Soviet Soldiers were still in the ruins a month later. Based on this example the Battle for Leyte didn't end in 1945 but ended in Feb 1974 when the last known Japanese soldier surrendered.Ryan.opel (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculous comparison. The Japanese in the Philippines were able to hide in remote areas. This was not the case here, where the battle was confined to a fortress.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-name?

[edit]

From the Soviet perspective it was the defense of the Brest fortress, from the German perspective the attack on the fortress. What's about a neutral position that would call it the battle for the Brest fortress? --C.G. (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. But I suggest using a proper WP:RM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a WP:RM is necessary. The question can easily be discussed here. Just give it enough time, a week or two should be enough. --C.G. (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ping User:Christian Ganzer. Forgotten idea, but no objections? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two weeks are over, right? :) Let's do it. By the way, Wikimedia Commons does not know a category "Defense of Brest Fortress", but a category "Battle of Brest (1941)". Let's use this here, too. --C.G. (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Defense of Brest Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CE

[edit]

@Mikeblas: Thanks, I don't know much about that citation style. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC) @Keith-264: Happy to help! If you get stuck or have a Q, don't hesitate to send a note. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration grammar

[edit]

One of the images has this incorrect English: "located on next to the border." I don't know how to modify image labels or legends. I hope someone else can cut either "on" or "next to." Kdammers (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defense_of_Brest_Fortress&oldid=1206916348"