h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

On Stalingrad:
In fact the Russian counterattack on either flank of Stalingrad was launched on November 19 1942, and the two spearheads joined up on the 23rd. (Hardly slowly.) But the Germans might still have broken out westwards if Hitler had not ordered them to stay in Stalingrad. ...

In general this is pretty good. There's loads more that COULD be added but you'd end up with a book, not an article.

Noggin

Great entry Well done!

Do you think its good enough for the edited guide?

As far as I can see yes! but it has to be in Peer Review for 7 days before it can get Scouted.

The style and the quality of the writing seems fine to me and edited guide worthy and it's my favourite type of entry, long and well researched!

But I don't know much about the subject matter so if anyone makes any more points about it you'll need to respond to them before it can be picked...

seems good so far,...

Thanks then !

*ponders for a while*

Hmm. What's that you say? Do *I* have an article that has been in the Peer Review over a week?

Why yes! I have!

What? What's that you say?

You would like to Scout it?

Of course! Here's the link A879645 Peruse at your hearts content!!

I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

I mean it! I want it scouted now!

Hi there,

I think this entry is quite thorough, but I do have some bones to pick with it, unfortunately. There are times when the language is a bit casual and imprecise. And other times when it is emotive (as Saturnine points out, I think). I feel that some of the comments and explanations are not sufficiently clear. And you use the phrase "all out" too often!

Some specific notes:

>>A collection of states that Lenin, the former leader, had put together by means of reveloution in 1917 that used to be called Russia

This sounds really clumsy - "by means of revolution". Do you really have to define USSR? If you were talking about the United States, would you put in a footnote saying "a collection of States that broke away from British colonial rule and was recognised in the Treaty of Paris in 1783"?

Anyway, I was under the impression that Russia (or the Russian Empire) became the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic or RSFSR in 1917. Then there was the civil war, after which in 1922 the USSR was established, i.e. the union of the RSFSR and various other soviet republics, including Belorus and Ukraine.

>>Lend-Lease agreement

What is this?

>>In December 1940 Hitler and his generals agreed on the destruction of the USSR at some point in the future.

I think this would read better if you removed "at some point in the future", as it sounds extremely vague and casual. Perhaps you could change it to "Hitler and his generals agreed on the eventual destruction of the USSR."

>> This was to be June 1941, along the boundary with the section of the USSR in Europe and to use three armies,

This sentence doesn't make sense. You could change to: "This was to be in June 1941, along the USSR's European border, using three armies..."

>>The morning of 22nd June, 1941 was a quiet one, with a gentle breeze, and the start of the Russian (USSR) summer warming the air. Then suddenly, a gunshot! Then, a bomb, a grenade and an artillery shell knocking out the first USSR strong points.

Were you there? If not, I would qualify this somewhat. If you know it was a quiet morning (have you read a contemporary account?) then at least say "The morning of 22nd June 1941 was said to be a quiet one....". And why would the invasion start with one gunshot? That sort of thing only happens in films. More likely it started with a full-on barrage from artillery guns or tanks and some air-to-surface bombing.

>>the Nazi’s seized Minsk

Do you mean "the Nazis" or do you mean "the German army"?

Incidentally, sometimes you say "Nazis", sometimes you say "Germans". The Nazis were a political party, not the entire population of Germany. I would stick with "Germany army" or "Germans" when you refer to the troops. If you are referring specifically to Hitler and his fellow politicians, then you could use "Nazis", as that is what they were.

>>At this point most military commanders would order their troops to retreat and regroup a few miles away but instead he ordered his troops to hold to the last man. This guaranteed that they would be wholly and completely annihilated.

This is a very subjective paragraph. Were the Soviet troops actually "wholly and completely annihilated" at Minsk? Then say so. Was Stalin actually trying to hold the Germans down until winter, or had he just decided to waste his army on them? I am not clear whether you are implying that Stalin had a plan that failed, or whether he was just being psychotic at this point.

>>MUD

No need for capitals here.

>>it was only a matter of time before General Winter would be constantly interfering with planes and making nonsense out of timetables.

I don't think this works in this type of entry. You should talk about winter non-figuratively in an historical account such as this.

>> battle of attrition and full on destruction

Aren't these two different (even opposite) things? Perhaps you mean that the battle had two differing aspects, one of 'attrition' and one of 'full on destruction', but it's not clear.

>>as the Germans and Russians wasted entire armies

This isn't very precise.

>>Eventually it was the Germans, blasting their way through the Crimea in May and re-taking Sevastopol.

Seems to be only half a sentence. Eventually it was the Germans that what?

>>The main reason that Hitler wanted to take Stalingrad was its name.

I think this is misleading. Hitler certainly did have a private obsession with Stalingrad, but there were also many strategic reasons for attacking the city, such as needing the oil in this region for the German war machine, cutting off Stalin's oil supply, driving Soviet troops north, gaining access to the east, etc.

>>but by the dreaded return of General Winter.

Again, I think its best if you play this one straight and say what you mean.

>>This led to the East/West scenario and the Iron Curtain, an imaginary boundary where two worlds met. This was known as the cold war.

I think this paragraph is a bit confusing. What is the "East/West scenario"? Also, the "Iron Curtain" was not known as "the cold war". I think you need to say something like:

This led to the formation of two defensive groupings in Europe: the Warsaw Treaty Organisation in the East and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in the West (which also included the United States). Although the two sides never actually went to war against each other, their mutual hostility was such that the period was known as the Cold War, and the division between East and West is most memorably described by Churchill's phrase, the Iron Curtain.

Despite all the comments, I did like this entry a lot. I just think that when writing a serious historical account, you need to be extra careful to be precise, unambiguous and clear in your explanations!

Good stuff, though!

Gubernatrix

Seems I have a bit of work to do!

With an entry this long it would be a miricle if it was perfect straight away. None of those comments need major changes, it shouldn't take long, let us know when you have made them.

Tango

Done!

I think i'll award myself some virtual and .

Hi again,

You haven't made some of the changes I suggested. Obviously if you don't like the opinionated ones, you are free to ignore them. But I did also point out some inaccuracies which you haven't fixed.

Gubernatrix

Hi Atari,

I have read this through, and whilst i think you cover lots of good info, i don't think it is as good as it *could* be...

I think you've written it in a lively style and, as i said, included many salient facts; nonetheless, it is not the way i would imagine the *perfect* entry on the subject you have chosen.

This is partly because you have chosen a difficult subject on which to write the *perfect* entry.

Don't Panic!

But i think there would be value in hammering this one out to a really high level. It's an emotive and broad-ranging subject. I don't mean you have to write the definitive 2,000 page oeuvre on it... but i don't think you're quite there yet.

Funnily enough, i am currently reading a fascinating book about the history of Berlin, and, being about halfway through, it is specifically looking at exactly this period.

one thing to think about - why did Stalin make that pre-39 treaty with a regime that had consistently and openly stated that communism and specifically the USSR were their most hated enemies?

anyway, i think you have the makings here of a very fine entry. I don't think it's finished yet (although i haven't read your latest update - but Gubernatrix's comments suggest that it hasn't been a comprehensive update).

Really, Don't Panic! And all the best with the entry. I've seen that some think it ready for 'action', but i'd say it could yet be improved.

sorry not to give any specific criticism... i'll try to do so soon.

cya
spiff

Its only my second entry after all .

Don't worry Atari, it's a great entry in the making, keep on truckin'!

gotta go, else i'd say more, but...

3rd time lucky...

Don't Panic!

spiff

See posting 42.

Phase one Blitzkreig: the order of events seems a little confused, and para 3 makes no sense at all. Stalin's refusal to allow troops to be withdrawn led directly to avoidable disasters at Kiev (in September) and (during Typhoon) at Vyazma.

The Russian rainy season is in late October - AFTER the start of Operation Typhoon - but before the start of the final assault on Moscow, and it gave the Soviet army crucial time in which to regroup and dig in in front of Moscow.

Sevastopol did not fall in 1942; although besieged it held out into 1943.

Noggin