Talk:Heiligenbeil Pocket

Disputed?

Most English sources I have seen refer to the encirclement as either the Heiligenbeil Kessel (e.g. Beevor; 300 Google results) or the Heiligenbeil Cauldron (e.g. Duffy; 81 Google results). The latter is, of course, simply a translation of the former (in German it's usually given as Heiligenbeiler Kessel or Kessel von Heiligenbeil). Very occasionally Braunsberg will be mentioned in Heiligenbeil, but the title seems fairly clear to me...?Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the en-Wiki, and if a more common English title is available, it is the preferred use. Not everyone has command of German to know what Kessel means, and we should not expect the reader to have a dictionary handy, or to go to one online just to read the title. As I understand it only code names of operations stay in the original language, or the names of the geographic places where they were used by the participants, in this case the Germans. Google searches are not to be used to prove anything due to mirrors and use by pasting from German sites.--mrg3105mrg3105 09:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If the preferred use is for the completely translated form, then Heiligenbeil Cauldron should perhaps be used, with Heiligenbeil Kessel given as an alternative/redirect, and a note on the German term Heiligenbeiler Kessel (which is the term used by Dieckert and Grossman, as well as Otto Lasch himself in So fiel Konigsberg).Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If you want to move the article, please do so and add that in the introduction.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Heiligenbeil Pocket should work, compare for example Demyansk Pocket. --Brand спойт 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems Glantz made a slight mistake since he has it was the Braunsburg Offensive Operation (13 March 1945 - 22 March 1945)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A Google Book search:

• 5 on "Heiligenbeil Pocket".
• 1 on "Heiligenbeil Cauldron"
• 3 on "Heiligenbeil Kessel" but all three are German.

A Google Scholar search:

• Your search - "Heiligenbeil Pocket" - did not match any articles.
• Your search - "Heiligenbeil Cauldron" - did not match any articles.
• 1 German book for "Heiligenbeil Kessel": Unternehmen Rettung: Letztes Schiff nach Westen

A web Foogle web search (has errors so one has to look at the last page returned):

• 12 English pages for "Heiligenbeil Pocket -wikipedia (see page 2)
• 5 English pages for "Heiligenbeil Cauldron" -wikipedia.
• 20 English pages for "Heiligenbeil Kessel" -wikipedia (see page 2)

Some of the pages returned for "Heiligenbeil Kessel" are in reality wikipedia mirrors like this one, so given these numbers I see no reason to move the article from Heiligenbeil Pocket. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The German phrase is Heiligenbeiler Kessel - Otto Lasch uses it, as does Horst Grossman, who actually commanded the VI Corps in the pocket. As for authors in English, Anthony Beevor uses Heiligenbeil Kessel, Duffy uses 'pocket', Hastings uses 'Cauldron'...take your pick...Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Using Google searches is meaningless, and we should be guided by Wikipedia naming conventions. The German use does not refer to an operational codename, and therefore per convention this needs to be translated directly into the Heiligenbeil Cauldron that also more accurately reflects the size of the encirclement--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions say use common English names. There is no evidence that the name "Heiligenbeil Cauldron" is common in English and as I pointed out above the Book search returns more books for pocket than Cauldron. Further if the name is descriptive then pocket is the correct English word for a pocket! I think "Heiligenbeil pocket" is best as it is not exactly a notable name in English. The rational for this came up with battles and whether it should be "Battle of XYZ" or "battle of XYZ" Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_64#Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military_terms I am not sure that the usage of this term is common enough for a proper noun as in "Heiligenbeil Pocket", but this is a minor detail and I really don't mind one way or another. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the size (and thank you mrg3105 for your message on my talk page) please see Talk:Courland Pocket as I pointed out there "As far as I know the German military term kessel is used for pocket in English eg de:Kessel von Falaise Falaise Pocket, de:Ruhrkessel Ruhr Pocket, the German language does not seem to make a distinctions you are trying to make." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree fully. General readers will think we're talking about cookery if 'cauldron' is used; a 'pocket' is the English term for such things. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well, when I read "Heiligenbeil Cauldron" I was actually irritated. "Kessel" can of course translate to cauldron but in a military context it translates to pocket. "Heiligenbeil Cauldron" is simply a bad translation - probably first used by someone without knowledge of military terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.192.53.55 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A pocket is usually something you are safe in. A cauldron is something you are usually in trouble in. The troops being slaughtered probably felt they were more in a "cauldron" than a "pocket", which might explain why some people chose that translation. North Americans tend to be a little less poetic, and "pocket" is easily understandable as a military term to me. It also benefits from being a neutral point of view, from either inside, or outside, the pocket. I would be interested to know how German speakers view this. Billyshiverstick (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

There are some occasional differences between English and American and I suspect this is one of them: what in the world does "...in full numbers around..." mean? 138.162.128.52 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It means the civilian population was in full numbers (they had not even began evacuation), around the time the Russians attacked. Maybe it should just say the civlian population was in full numbers when the Russians attacked. Hannibalcaesar (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I just fixed it. Hannibalcaesar (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We Need a Map Here gang...

From its title, through most of its detail, to its climax, this article hinges on geography. Without even a general map, this article is very hard to understand. Sorry I don't have the Wiki chops to add one. best regards Billyshiverstick (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)