Talk:218th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)

Defence

I would say the word defence is a perfectly reasonable word to use. It portrays a military stance, so is descriptive of an event. Its perfectly possible to defend weather its your territory or not. Definition, resisting attack. Are you saying that one can only defend on ones own national territory? 'On the Baltic Islands 1944', sounds like someone is going on a holiday there. I'm perfectly happy for other editors to change articles, so I am not concerned about these changes per say, just that they reflect a bias on your part that you should be aware of.Christwelfwww (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I felt the article was overdoing the "defender" theme; for example, the edit included:

• Defenders of Kholm...
• defensive positions around Leningrad...
• Defense of the Baltic Islands...
• The [[Moonsund Landing Operation|defense of the Baltic Islands]] was initially entrusted... -- here we also have unnecessary piping
• ....forcing the defenders back, but a landing behind the German lines failed to unhook the defenses... -- twice in one sentence :-)
• ....in the defense of the Baltic Islands...

IMO, it's okay to describe "defensive lines", "defensive positions" or being "on the defensive", but the volume of "defence" for a short article was excessive. Sounds too much like "defenders of fortress Europe".

Separately, the "desperate defensive battles" is a frequent trope of the articles with dubious content, so it makes me look at such articles more critically. See for example, from my list of Problematic WWII content:

• There are such things as defensive victories, and even decisive ones. Another example of "successful defensive battles" in which the company is reduced to 30 men, and yes, Berlin is about to fall
• Another general claims a 'major defensive victory', despite "losing many men and being pushed back around 100 (!) kilometres"
• "Defensive operations on the Eastern Front" vs "Retreat" -- which one is in plain English and shorter?

Hope this helps. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I added two "defensive" statements where it made sense. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Strength / source

and had about 15,000 men, 48 guns in its artillery regiment, and mobility was provided mainly by horse-drawn vehicles, it had about 5,000 horses - so, where is the source for that. And for which date that strength was given ? --213.172.123.242 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)