User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 8

Red Army flags

I guess you don't like them :o)? There is another style ....-- mrg3105mrg3105 11:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

62nd Army (Soviet Union)

Buckshot06, I started an article on the 62nd Army. Request you review and modify as you have the opportunity. Thanks--W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree the 62nd is a significant topic. I may work more on the article but it will take some time as I will have to review the few books I have on the eastern front. There is certainly more on the 62nd which can be put in the article; at the same time, the article shouldn't replicate the Battle of Stalingrad article. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention Khrushev ;O) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell us more Mrg. Was he there? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

G'day. My computer is hors d'combat for a couple of days, so I'm working offline on trying to reconcile Soviet periodisation and German 'battle' dating into a single Eastern Front timeline.

Khrushev was for a time a Member of the Military Council (i.e. head Party man) of the Don and later Stalingrad Front I think (one or the other). He was very famous for it later after the war as being one of the few Politburo Stalingradets (meaning somone who had been in the Stalingrad) although he didn't actually patticipate in any activities that had him shot at or bombed. In soviet union it was a bit of a joke, when someone claimed they took a part in something, but no one saw them there, the saying would go "Like Khrushev in Stalingrad" Brezhnev btw was a noted personality of the 4th Ukrainian Front (Member fot he Military Council, i.e. Chief Political officer; there is a picture of them together on the Brezhnev article you can probably reuse) ;O) I should be back online in the next 3-4 day God and my IP provider willing.--mrg3105mrg3105 05:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Poznan

Hi Buckshot06, I have Chuikov's memoirs for the post-Stalingrad actions and a German book on the Poznan battle as well, so I'll be able to develop an order of battle for both sides as well as put in further information. It should be start-class by the time I'm done with it. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary usage

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Ohmpandya (Talk) 22:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

51st Army

Hi Buckshot06, I should be able to at least contribute the names of the commanders. I'll check my sources. Cheers, --W. B. Wilson (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06, glad the edits were of help. The source I quoted is the East German translation of the Soviet official history of the war. Alas, I only have it as hard-copy. It used to be available for very reasonable prices on the web. Even if one can't read German, the accompanying maps are a super resources. One neat aspect of my set is they were stamped as being part of an East German military official collection and then, after the wall came down, this marking was overstamped as "invalid". Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06, both things are now done. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Parallel history project

Are you familiar with this? http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/index.cfm--mrg3105mrg3105 04:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

search assistance

I'm not sure if you already do this, but I put together a phrase in Russian for you to help search for divisional histories published online
о боевом пути стрелковой дивизии
Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I optimised it to get maximum hits in Google 164,000 for о боевом пути стрелковой дивизии--mrg3105mrg3105 09:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps

I'm not sure if its helpful for you, but I sometimes find it helpful to look at maps. There is a good collection of online Soviet maps here http://militarymaps.narod.ru/maps.html --mrg3105mrg3105 11:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

36th Army

When you get to the 36th Army, its current emblem is found here http://www.mil.ru/849/12215/12346/16001/16462/16475/index.shtml--mrg3105mrg3105 04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The interesting thing about the 36th Army is that it is second formation. It was disbanded in 1948 after the war and was used to reconstitute the 14th Army which was intended for the invasion of Alaska. http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=191077 --mrg3105mrg3105 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia as propaganda

Buckshot06, I'd like to invite your attention to two eastern front articles Battle of Narva - Battle for the Narva Bridgehead (1944) and Battle of Narva - Battle of the Tannenberg Line (1944). While they contain a wealth of information, I'd honestly have to rate their historical worth as awful. Both read more like memoirs of German (particularly SS) commanders than encyclopedic accounts of military actions. Laughably, they both claim the battle results as "tactical German victories". Since when did "tactical victory" come to mean that the "winning" side got defeated and pushed back hundreds of kilometers?

These should probably be rewritten at some point to offer a more balanced POV; as it is, they are nothing more than barely disguised cheerleading for the SS. I'm wondering if I'm overreacting to them and would like to know your take on them. Thanks--W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I might be interested in rewriting them at some point to include more of the Soviet side, using the some other sources. I noted the German official history barely mentions these actions as apparently the decisive action was to the south of Lake Peipus. On one the talk pages, another user noted that regular units of the Wehrmacht were barely mentioned, a historical blindspot often found in SS memoirs.

I'll see what can I dig up on 1st Red Banner Army. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re the Narva Bridgehead. I have some more to add, just have to wade through official histories to get a better overall understanding of what was going on. Thanks--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Red fleets and flotillas

Many ground operations included formations and units from the various fleets and flotillas of the "Workers' and Peasants' Red Fleet". In many ways the fleets were subordinated to the Fronts they cooperated with. The Soviet Navy article is quite poor (lots of editing needed), and I would be happier to create a new GPW article for the Red Fleet with 'daughter' articles for the fleets and flotillas. My question is however, should I include naval operations in the Red Army operations template or should there be a separate template for Red Fleet given its a separate service. Of course you already included the Air Armies and Armies of PVO in the RKKA template, so I'm in two minds. Would appreciate your or Mr.Wilson's advice. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 10:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have a list of 50 Soviet Naval command echelon entities (including VMF High Command), of which only four are fleets and two flotillas are covered so far by articles. The problem is the Pacific Ocean Fleet (Russia) which ambiguously refers to neither the Russian Empire or to the Russian Federation. I have no idea which of the many flotillas pre-existed the Soviet period (and which still exist), so I have no choice but to name the articles with (Soviet Union) national qualifier. Ideally I would like to use the Soviet era parts of the current fleet articles in the new Soviet Union articles as a basis for future expanded articles. I would strongly suggest that the existing articles are also divided into the (Russian Empire) and (Russian Federation) articles. The former covers 200 years of history, and the later will hopefully exist for at least another 20-40 years before Russia is absorbed into the European Union. In any case, it seems to me that the articles need to be divided into more focused periods of fleet and flotilla histories. --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 04:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Struggle

How does Struggle for Smolensk sound? The Russian word for it is srazheniye, which is larger then a bitva (battle) but is not an operatsiya since it was somewhat of a disorganised affair. However some may feel that 'struggle' is a bit dramatic for an article title.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sapper army

Hi Buckshot06, I created a new article with this title. Please review and contribute as you have time and find appropriate. Thank you. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess I'm propagandizing myself now, heh. You're correct, the 300,000 was the total strength figure of the first six sapper armies formed. Now edited. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Russia FAC/Good article

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction will probably help if things get too out of hand; aside from that, I expect that you'll find consensus to be on your side. :-) Kirill 03:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Separate vs Independent

Sorry to bring this up again, but I don't remember getting an answer to this. You keep translating отдельная (otdel'naya) as separate rather then independent when referring to formations and units. I can't remember seeing an answer from you, but the difference is not just semantic. "Armies, as operational large units, could operate within a front or independently along a separate operational direction." p.81, Soviet military operational art, D.M. Glantz, Frank Cass, 1991

Also with this (which I didn't notice) "To be totally honest, I hate those br things. I use spaces to do what you use those things to do, and I think they're unnecessary. Also, please capitalise Division & Brigade in titles - no 6th Motor-Rifle division, but 6th Motor Rifle Division. Finally I don't think it's likely that the RD predecessors of the 59th GMRD and the 33rd MRD will get their own articles separately, so redlinking them is unnecessary. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)"

It seems to me that the capitalisation of Motor-Rifle Division is German. In English the form is Motor-rifle division, unless you spell out completely the Russian abbreviation to motorised rifle division. This is only because writing double-r in a word, motorrifle would be strange. MRD is only used because of the US Army penchant for capitalisation of acronyms. The correct English practice is to use mrd, which is also the Soviet style by the way. Ths is to differentiate proper names from nouns, such as for example Mozdok Rabochaya Druzhina (MRD). As for whether the Second World War rifle divisions will get their own articles, I'd say that nothing can be said about the future content of Wikipedia :o) Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 01:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Russian forces

Hi Buckshot, sorry about the late reply. I'm working full time now and currently only trying to keep the articles and graphics I already made up to date. it is a big project I'm working on and it will last well into October - so there is no way to say, when I will be able to return to work as much on wikipedia as i used to work. best regards, --noclador (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Subcategories in Category:Military units and formations of Ukraine

Вы понасоздавали несколько подкатегорий в Category:Military units and formations of Ukraine - напр. Category:Brigades of Ukraine, Category:Corps of Ukraine. Возникает вопрос - а там декомпозиция вообще нужна ? Я вот как-то сомневаюсь, что количество статей в Category:Military units and formations of Ukraine перевалит за 200 ... --Movses (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot read or speak Russian or Ukrainian. You'll have to repeat your query in English. Best regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You creates some subcategories in Category:Military units and formations of Ukraine, e.g. Category:Brigades of Ukraine, Category:Corps of Ukraine. So, I have the question - is this subcategories really need ? I asked, cause now this categories have one, two articles and I have doubt about category Category:Military units and formations of Ukraine should have more than 200 articles. Please, answer in this talk page, I'm watch your talk page. --Movses (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Movses. If you check the Category:Military units and formations by country you'll see the categories Category:Brigades by country, Category:Divisions by country, and Category:Corps by country. They all have country subdivisions. In order to access the Ukrainian formation through that, one has to create the subcategories - I was simply bringing the Ukraine up to the usual standard. For example, see Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet Union with Fronts, Armies, Corps, divisions etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

VDV

Hi Buckshot06. Regarding the latest restucturing of the VDV: are the paratroops that specialize in parachuting from helicopters such as the mi-8 now organic to the "air-mobile" 7th and 76th, or "airborne" 98th and 106th? It seems in the past, within each VDV division, those who parachuted from the IL-76, parachuted from the mi-8, and those who air-assaulted, would be made up as distinct battalions each. Thanks. Ledboots (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And here is a march file for VDV http://download.sovmusic.ru/m32/vdv.mp3 --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

3rd Shock Army

Would you happen to have the correct German spelling for the GSFG base towns?--mrg3105mrg3105 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

British Armies during the Second World War

Do you know if the British spelled out of numbered their Field Army names?--mrg3105mrg3105 06:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Army

Was it you who was/is the primary editor for this article? Please have a look at the Wehrmacht Heer structure and tell me what you think as I would lie to change the Red Army structure accordingly.--mrg3105mrg3105 10:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is going to have to be split into two articles, the RKKA and the Soviet Army.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 13:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Military of Ukraine

You will note that despite my origins and knowledge of military history and technology I have completely stayed out of the Military of Ukraine editing for the precise reasons I outlined on my talk page. As a historian I do not wish to be used.--mrg3105mrg3105 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

NZ Boer War battle honours

Its interesting that New Zealand units claim these as battle honours. It is my understanding that according to Imperial, and even current standards volunteers can not claim battle honours for their units. All Boer War engagements where NZ volunteers participated only list them as NZ Mounted Rifle Contingents (numbered 1- 9; ten were sent). However this "Moore, James G. Harle (James Gerald Harle). With the Fourth New Zealand Rough Riders. Dunedin: Otago Daily Times and Wilness Newspapers Co., 1906." Suggests that they were not associated with just-raised NZ Army units since no self-respecting soldier would describe his unit as "Rough Riders" (except maybe American Civil War troops?). Given this was printed in 1906, there was no retrospective unit association, so the battle honours were awarded at a later date, and my guess is for some other reason. Given its a campaign battle honour "South Africa", and there was no South Africa until the Union of South Africa in 1910 (on my birthday incidentally) this seems to be confirmed. I'd be most interested to find out the dating of the battle honour award. My guess is that this happened during the First World War when the Empire was anxious to keep the 'colonials' happy. Australian claims are somewhat better based because of the small contingent of NSW Lancers which served in regimental uniform.--mrg3105mrg3105 06:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of myths

Do you have this book http://www.amazon.com/Great-Myths-World-War-II/dp/0942910117/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201775959&sr=1-1

--mrg3105mrg3105 10:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC) I wonder if you have read this 1940: Myth and Reality by Clive Ponting. I have not, and in one of his other books he offers no bibliography, so being a journalist, he seems to be less then credible.--mrg3105mrg3105 10:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ouch

Thank you for the kind words. If all go according to plan the cast should come off Febuary 9, allowing me to use both hands for typing. Thank you for the (planned) vote for me, I hope to serve another six monthes as an Assistant Coordinator. Lastly, the Kirov vs Iowa discussion was on the talk page for the Iowa class near the bottom. Consenus there was that the Kirov class was a factor in the recommissioning of the battleships, but not a "signigant" factor; more likely either for show or for numerical supremacy. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Operation Silver Fox

I notice you put a bar on this page, pointing out the German viewpoint of this article; I didn't know we had them! It was that that started me editing here: I was planning to do something about if you've no objection. I've also been editing the related pages (Reindeer, Platinum Fox, Arctic Fox), for the same reason. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

re:Translation request

Hey Buckshot. Yes, I got your earlier message, I've just been very busy lately (exams, and other stuff). You wouldn't happen to know anything on the topic of the Ukraine-Russia war in the civil war period, would you? We could really use some help with the Soviet structures and whatnot. Anyways, sorry about the delay...Leningrad Front. P.s. could you take a look at the post November 1942 structure, it doesn't look right. Cheers, Bogdan ^що? 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Buckshot. I just stumbled on to the Soviet Fronts template. It's quite useful, do you think we should insert it into the articles, or is it incomplete in some way? Bogdan ^що? 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I say remove it and redirect it to 1st far East, aren't they one and the same? What does Mrg think? Bogdan ^що? 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PVO Fronts

Sorry to ask a stupid question, but I hadn't noticed before, but PVO Fronts are not in the PVO article. Did you intend to add them there, or in the Fronts article?--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 08:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

TNA Digitised records

I don't think that sort of area has been too much of a priority for digitisation, I more had in mind World War I service records, and Army recommendations for decorations from WWII, But I'll have a look see. David Underdown (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This lists some British decorations awarded to members of the Force Publique in WWII, including a few actual Congolese. I've had a quick look at one of the citiations, and it suggests 10 Belgian Congo Casualty Clearing Station, Belgian Congo Army Medical Service saw service in Burma which is not currently mentioned in the article. David Underdown (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

what are your plans after Erickson?

If you tell me what your plans are for after Erickson, I can try to collect data and prepare it for your editing.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 07:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

re: NZ Special Air Service

Done: New Zealand Special Air Service. That page was redirecting to Special Air Service of New Zealand, which was causing some kind of odd conflict. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

51st Army

I've seen this photo in commons:Category:Monuments of Sevastopol sometime ago. And when I found the article on the 51st Army created by you, I remembered that picture. Thank you for the nice article! Av0id3r (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article passing the A-class review. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Desert Storm map

I uploaded a new version of the Desert Storm map, with Egyptian, Syrian and multinational forces labeled (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Operation Desert Storm). How does it look now? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Army (Soviet Army)

You could try to have each of the tables feature the same set of columns, for consistency; but I think it's pretty much ready overall. (Having said that, my experience with lists of this sort is pretty minimal, so I could be missing something obvious. You might try asking Woody for his advice.) Kirill 14:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Test

If you get this message your talk page is now working again. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is going to be a big project. The book by Joseph S. Bermudez is excellent and should be useful though. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

MNF-I and EAC---see talk page

You raise a reasonable point, although it's not a simple issue. I thought it best to put it on the Talk:Echelons above Corps if we continue the discussion.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

9th Infantry Division (Soviet Union)

I created this article only to illustrate that the history of a unit can be a very varied one indeed, and the changes of names also. The 131st brigade (the article is far from complete on this unit) retained the flag and the honorifics of the old division, except those that no longer apply within the Russian Federation, i.e. the name of Georgian SSR. I was rather surprised the unit wasn't covered by you because it was widely reported on in the Russian media and Western publications as a very infamous ambush where Russian troops were accused of incompetence and misuse of tanks in urban combat, etc.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 02:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

6th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)

Thanks for the note about the unit; I see the article states it is "a rough translation of an article in Russian" - but it seems to be missing an interwiki link. PS. With regards to siege of Brest, perhaps you could offer a third opinion on article's talk? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we know who was the division's commander during the first days of Barbarossa - so we could add that info the siege of Brest (1941) article? Also, is the 17th Frontier Guards Detachment notable enough to be turned into an ilink - and if not, do we have an article about the Frontier Guards type of unit? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not good with transliterations but I will ask User:KNewman who takes care of that :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:'Civil Securities Force'

Bernandez calls this organisation the 'State Security Department', though the 'Ministry of Public Security' has over-lapping responsibilities. The State Security Department is the secret police and runs a domestic and limited international intelligence system and a hugle political prison system while the Ministry seems to be a paramilitary police force and civil defence organisation combined. I've just moved the article to State Security Department (North Korea) and will update the links. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes that's right. The State Security Department is seperate from the Armed forces, though both ultimately report to Kim Chong-il through the National Defence Commission. The Ministry of Public Security reports to Kim through the Cabinet and sits outside the military command and control arrangements. The very simplified chain of command for the KPA is:

• Kim Chong-il
  • National Defence Commission
    • State Security Department
    • Ministry of People's Armed Forces
      • General Staff Department
        • Bureaus, commands and operational units

Simple! Bernandez has lots of great org charts and I'll make some up for the articles. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

The CIA world factbook says here (see military section) that the Civil Security Forces are part of the Korean People's Army, contrary to what you edited on the article on the Civil Security Forces, the template relating to it, and the Korean People's Army. See for yourself. _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 05:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

426th Fighter Aviation Squadron

Thanks for catching that! I've added a citation for it. It came from Warfare.ru. Many people know it for a good source on Russian aircraft, but forget it has basing information for those aircraft, too. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of stubs

Have a look at this and tell me if stubs are unwarranted.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

270th RD

Only what is in Poirier and Conner. It reads on pp. 365-366:
First and second formation: 973, 975, 977 Rifle, 810 Artillery Regiments.
-Raised at Melitopol, Odessa Military District, July 1941.
-Southwest Front w/12 Army, Aug. 1941.
-Destroyed Izyum, May 1942.
-Second formation raised at Voronezh, Ural Military District, Oct. 1942.
-Stalingrad area, Nov. 1942.
-Kharkov w/69 Army, Feb. 1943.
-Kursk w/69 Army, July 1943.
-Demidov, Sep. 1943.
-Belorussian Op., June 1944.
-"Demidov, Polotsk," Order of Red Banner
—Preceding unsigned comment added by W. B. Wilson (talk • contribs) 08:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you need help with translation of the earlier Russian?

I also have last OOB for the 35th Army, so might as well do both.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 11:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

150th RD

I think the term lake Voshvanzee may refer to the Wannsee, but I'm not sure what the 'vosh' denotes. The Wannsee is made up of two parts, the Greater Wannsee and the Lesser Wannsee, not sure if that helps. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)