Talk:First Battle of the Masurian Lakes

Removed a vandal's edit

Unfortunately, the article was vandalized by Yura2404, who was trying to exaggerate the number of Russian casualties in almost every article he edited and gave references to sources that didn’t support his claims. Here, he stated that “[the] Russians suffered a crushing defeat and retreated in disarray with massive losses” and cited the following book as his source: “Spencer C. Tucker, The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, 2013, p. 232”. However, neither Tucker nor any other historian said anything of the sort. On the contrary, Tucker (or rather John W. Bohon, who wrote a few articles for his book) says that “Rennenkampf finally disengaged under cover of a two-division counterattack, thereby preventing a second German double envelopment” (p. 232). It was an organized retreat combined with successful counterattacks and there is no way it can be regarded as a “crushing defeat” and “retreat in disarray”. For more details, see: Keegan, J. The First World War. Vintage. 2000. P. 138ff. I’m cleaning up the article. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I suspected of the edits but couldn't check them, other edits should be check too. Bertdrunk (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I cannot but agree with you and am quite surprised that nobody blocked that user or at least dropped a warning template on his talk page. He was constantly misusing or cherry-picking sources and pointing to history books that actually contradicted what he was saying about the casualties sustained by the Imperial Russian Army. For example, in “Baranovichi Offensive” he put the number of casualties at “80,000 KIA, WIA, MIA” and “13,000 KIA, WIA, MIA”, respectively, and gave a reference to Залесский К. А. Кто был кто в Первой мировой войне. — М:Астрель. АСТ, 2003. — p. 699 (in Russian). I checked the book and found out that there was not even a single mention of those “80,000 KIA, WIA, MIA and 13,000 KIA, WIA, MIA” on p. 699 or elsewhere. Furthermore, in “Lake Naroch Offensive” he estimated the Russian casualties at 150,000, pointing to another Russian source, namely Оськин М. В., Брусиловский прорыв, М., 2010, p. 7. Once again, I checked his source and discovered that the author put the casualties at 80,000 (p. 8), not even close to 150,000. Also, the vandal claimed – this time without citing any evidence at all – that the human wave attack was a “Russian method of war”, despite the fact that it was applied by the Germans in the First Battle of Ypres, the French during the Nivelle Offensive, the British in the Battle of the Somme, etc. And lastly, in “Brusilov Offensive” he tried to remove a reference to the opinion of historian Graydon A. Tunstall, who regarded the offensive as “the worst crisis of World War I for Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente's greatest victory”. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

My opponent from Russia, do not lie to our Western colleagues, read the books carefully! “Залесский К. А. Кто был кто в Первой мировой войне. — М:Астрель. АСТ, 2003. — p. 699” - the Russian losses 80 000 KIA, WIA, MIA. About Naroch: see “Оськин М. В., Брусиловский прорыв, М., 2010, p. 7” Russian losses: Western front 90 000., North front 60 000 KIA, MIA, WIA. a total of 150 000 soldiers. What the your problem? Losses of the 8 th German army for all September 1914 y.: 1555 KIA, 10412 WIA and 1552 MIA. About 13 000 soldiers, not 40 000. See: Сергей Нелипович, Первый блин комом,Восточно-Прусская операция 1914 года, p. 69 (Links to the official German history of the First World War: Sanitaetsbericht ueber das Deutsche Heer (Deutsche Feld- und Besatzungsheer) im Weltkriege 1914/1918. Bd.II. B., 1938. S.495. ) German official military history of the First World War - the most authoritative source about German losses. Therefore 10,000 german casualties in First Masurian Battle, not 40,000 - the truth. Yura2404 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC),

Please, do not cite other sources on this page. I’ve read the books mentioned above and yet I haven’t found anything about “80,000 KIA, WIA, MIA + 13,000 KIA, WIA, MIA” in Залесский К. А. Кто был кто в Первой мировой войне. — М:Астрель. АСТ, 2003. — p. 699. It contains only one number and says absolutely nothing about the German losses. Besides, there is virtually no mention of any casualties suffered by either side in Оськин М. В., Брусиловский прорыв, М., 2010, p. 7, so it seems it’s you who should read your books carefully and stop “lying to our Western colleagues”. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with two different figures of German losses. Many books suggest 10,000, many - 40 000. My point -10 000. In accordance with the official German history of the First World War: Sanitaetsbericht ueber das Deutsche Heer (Deutsche Feld- und Besatzungsheer) im Weltkriege 1914/1918. Yura2404 (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Both of these figures will remain in the infobox. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Request

Could an editor here please check the (very short) summary of this battle at World War I#Eastern Front and provide needed cite(s)? Thank you.LeadSongDog come howl 20:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Decisive German victory?

John Keegan's discussion of the battle in his The First World War doesn't seem to back up this article's description of the battle as a decisive German victory. In Keegan's telling, the fact that Rennenkampf managed to hold his army together and conduct an orderly retreat was a real achievement given the dangerous position he found himself in after Samsonov's defeat at Tannenberg. Should we consider revising? john k (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Something like "German victory, Russian organized retreat" would do. GreyHood ^Talk