Talk:Mikhail Tukhachevsky

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mikhail Tukhachevsky article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / Russian & Soviet / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War I task force

Neopaganism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union: Russia / History / Military High‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Russia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.

Untitled[edit]

"Polish origin" of Tukhachevsky is currently considered to be a myth (at a very least - unsubstantiated), and this should be noted in the text. Also, there is no reason to include his name in Polish spelling, since this spelling was not likely to have been originally used (no more so than any other non-native language).

Russian spellings[edit]

I'm sure we have a page somewhere on the correct rendering of Russian names, but I can't find it. Our current article is called Mikhail Tukhachevsky, but Google says that Mikhail Tukhachevski is the correct spelling by a ratio of 10 to 1. Do we have a policy? Where is it? Adam 04:03, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes - we're supposed to go with what most english speakers call them. However, as the Kiev article demonstrates, not everyone abides by the rules. I think there's going to be a referrendum sooner or later. →Raul654 04:05, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oops, actually I am wrong, the Google ratio is the other way around. But I still want to know, do we write Vasili or Vassily or Vasily? Semen or Semyen or Semyon? Konev or Koniev or Konyev or Kon'ev? The dispute over Kiev is different, it involves alternative Russian and Ukrainian spellings. Adam 04:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, one issue is that Russian passports used to (and possibly still do) carry translitterations following French usage, not English usage. Thus, Sergey is rendered as Serguei on those passports. David.Monniaux 07:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK well no-one seems to what out policy is, so I will do as I please. Adam 07:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does it have any fixed transcription scheme for russian names into english? I know it has one standard one for Russian to German, but not sure if there is just one standard for english. andy 07:45, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If there was a fixed scheme for Russian-English transcription, I wouldn't have had to ask my original question, now would I? There are several schemes. My question is, has Wikpwedia adopted one of them? If so, which one? Does anyone know? Adam 07:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is the nearest I have got to an answer (section 3.1 I recall). Pfortuny 16:42, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't really help. It is an argument about the presentation of names, rather than their spelling. It doesn't help me for example in deciding between Yuri and Yury and Yurii, all of which are widely used. The record so far is Marshal Semyon Budyonny, who is also spelled Budenny, Budennii, Budyenni, Budyenny, Budyennii and Budyonni. Adam 00:34, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK well since no-one is able to advise me I am going to follow what seems to me the most sensible rule. In the name Будённый, I am going render ё as /yo/ rather than /e/ or /ye/, since that's how it's pronounced, and I'm going to render -ый as /y/ since /ii/ although orthographically correct looks very pedantic. Thus it become /Budyonny/. I also don't see why Russian biographical articles need to use the patronym in the article title, since that is not the way Russians are referred to in English. This means I will be moving some articles. If anyone wants to argue with me they are welcome. Adam 05:53, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

War of 1920[edit]

Should I expand the section explaining his command over bolshevik troops in the War of 1920? Is it needed? [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 19:35, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

By all means, provided you do not drag in a whole lot of irrelevant Polish history and associated polemic. (Just a friendly warning.) Adam 05:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I love your friendly warnings... [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 08:41, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

This particular warning is based on considerable experince of the passions that Polish history seems to arouse in the breasts of many Wikipedians. Adam 10:38, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You do not warn other "passionate" users of British, American, German, Russian or Ukrainian origin, do you. :) Probably it's high time you understood that there are historians in other parts of the world as well and we share the same set of values regarding the truth and facts. It's only their interpretation that differs. I'm not offended but please, don't be so paternalist towards me. Such paternal advise (or friendly warning, as you call it) is out of place and might even be regarded as offensive to some. (Just a friendly explanation). [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 13:49, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Tukhachevsky Affair[edit]

Regarding the final chapter about the so-called 'Tukhachevsky Affair' and the framing of Tukhachevsky by the Nazi high command - with the collusion of Stalin, and the lack of new evidence. This is dealt with extensively in Vadim Rogovin's book '1937, Stalin's Year of Terror' (Mehring Books 1998, ISBN 0-929087-77-1 Paperback) - specifically Chapter 48 'The Stalin-Hitler Provocation' which deals in great detail with the collusion between Nazi & Communist Intelligence to frame Tukhachevsky. I will post something accordingly shortly on this.

Tukhachevsky: a holy martyr genius, or a bloody-handed terrorist/hangman idiot[edit]

German historians have recently discovered in the archives that he was guilty: he tried to sell Ukraine to the Reich

where is the data?

The text of the current version is but an echo of the Nikita Khrushchev time propaganda.I have read his "scientific work." I intend to add a separate section with an alternative biography/characteristic of Tukhachevsky (without modifying the existing content). Prior to that, I would summon a discussion here. AbuAmir 19:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

http://hem.lidnet.se/~agzybirlik/tuhachvski.htm: T. sent to Tambov. Original command texts about war gases, against civilians

http://militera.lib.ru/science/tuhachevsky/index.html Thukhachevsky, selected writings, free fulltext russian

http://www.aif.ru/online/longliver/01-02/09_01?print neutral analysis

http://militera.lib.ru/science/tuhachevsky/01.html tukhachevsky suggests to convert comissars to comanding officers.

Please, someone read Wiktor Suworow (Rezun) books. He gives detailed analysis on Tukhachevsky "revolutionary" strategy & military reform attempts (he advocated building 50 000 tanks during a single year - pure idiocy). Also, his "battering ram" strategy (detailed in Pilsudski's "1920") failed miserably. Tukhachevsky was just poor stratgist and war criminalist. --62.121.88.128 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purges of 1930, when the men behind theories of modern war, often falsely attributed to Tuhachevsky - such as Aleksandr Svechin [1], were purged by Tuhachevsky are not even mentioned in this article. Some modern historians, for example, Vadim Kozhinov, are convinced that those purges hurt the RKKA much more than the purges of the late 1930s. I would have to agree with "poor strategist" and "war criminal". With respect, Ko Soi IX 01:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rezun's research has a reputation for being disputable. (His assertion that the Soviet Union planned to invade Germany in 1941, to name his most infamous case.) Citing him as a source for anything is dubious at best. Smershx01 (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rezun's research, however inconvenient and controversial it may be, is backed by declassified documents from the Kremlin archives. Tukhachevsky was glorified in the process of de-Stalinization, and thus any criticism of him fell out of favor. It is in the interests of neutrality that Rezun's research be at least mentioned Lothar_von_Richthofen 21:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About "50 000 tanks per year", it was just lie. Tukhachevsky real wanted "only" 20 000 tanks per year. 50 000 was number created by Kliment Voroshilov, Tukhachevsky military-political opponent, who fought against Tukhachevsky in military and political questions. Many Tukhachevsky requests to Stalin were caricated by Voroshilov. I will find copies of Tukhachevsky letters, where Tukhachevsky informing Stalin about his real plans. In letters Tukhachevsky agree with Stalin disagree about "Tukhachevsky plans" presented by Voroshilov. Give me few weeks. --92.62.226.31 (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

return of the operations theory[edit]

Repression of the officer corps had nothing to do with the deep operations theory. --mrg3105 mrg3105 03:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

references must be used with responsibility[edit]

There is a section mentioning Tukh. using war gases against civilians in peacetime. There are enough online available resources with the original commands text, yet Abune preferred to mention the 1939 edition of the "official com.party history" as a source. Of course this pathetic document can't be used as a source for anything but to demonstrate how flexible truth may be. And even if it was otherwise, the said "history" does NOT say a word about Tambov, Gases etc ! AbuAmir (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter's fate[edit]

Did she hang herself or was arrested? Needs editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.212.200 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to book of Сергеев Фёдор Михайлович, "Тайные операции нацистской разведки, 1933-1945." — М.: Политиздат, 1991. ISBN 5-250-00797-X, page 44: "Дочь‑подросток, когда достигла совершеннолетия, тоже была арестована. До реабилитации находилась в лагере. Умерла в Москве в 1982 году." which can be translated "daughter-underaged was arrested when reached adults age. Until rehabilitation was located in camp. Died in Moscow on 1982".Tõnu Samuel (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added now it to main article as best I could. Help in improving please :) Tõnu Samuel (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wah...Montefiore ...[edit]

is NOT a source, c'mon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.129.198 (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Deep Operations"[edit]

The article states that "Deep Operations" theory 'fell out of favour' during 1937-39 and was only brought back after the so-called failures of the Red Army during the Winter War. That statement is rendered completely false by the preceding paragraph, which describes its successful use by Zhukov in Mongolia against Japanese forces months before the Winter War even began.

Extended content

In reality, the Winter War should probably not be even mentioned altogether because of the fact that "Deep Operations" and other blitzkrieg tactics are designed for being used as a quick surprise manoeuvre to break through moderately-prepared forward defences: not forests, swamps, and the Mannerheim Line.

In Finland, the Red Army faced conditions which were not at all conducive to any sort of "Deep Operations". First off, Finland was completely and thoroughly prepared for defence. Extensive preparations had been made designed to protect against the only threat to Finnish national integrity: the Soviet Union. Blitzkrieg tactics are intended to work around defences and obstacles. In Finland, most of the frontier had been turned into defences and obstacles. That which seemed able to be "worked around" often was more dangerous than that which was obviously an obstacle: some bridges had explosives built into them so as to have them easily detonatable when the time came for the Russians to invade. And if the Finnish security pale was formidable, their actual defences were even more imposing. The Mannerheim Line was viewed as near-impenetrable by many foreign military experts. The sheer design of it coupled with the fact that the defenders knew it so very well made it so.

Furthermore, "Deep Operations"/blitzkrieg is highly dependent on the cooperation of the armour and air arms of the military. If you look at the terrain of Finland and the weather conditions of the war, you will see why this was not possible. Tanks cannot advance through thick forests and semi-frozen swamps easily; they are better suited for plains and roads. Of plains there are none in Finland, and the roads were worked into the whole plan of defence for Finland. So, tanks were not particularly useful here. As for air support: out of the 105 days of the war, only 25 or so were good flying weather. This coupled with the fact that daylight was extremely short (especially in northern Finland) made it every difficult for the air wing to even act as artillery spotters, let alone air-to-ground support.

And as for the infantry aspect: no army in modern history (perhaps all of history even) had ever conducted even a failed offensive in any temperature under -20 degrees centigrade. Temperatures that winter reached well below -30 degrees centigrade at times. The Finns were reared in cold weather, and their defences had been made with warmth in mind. The Red Army, on the other hand, had it much more difficult. Making structures to provide insulation from the cold was terribly difficult; digging into permafrost is as hopeless as digging into solid granite. Those who were wounded badly could not be reliably operated on in tese conditions; they froze to death before they could be fixed up.

Yet in spite of all these difficulties, the soldiers of the Red Army succeeded. They broke through the Mannerheim Line, a task thought impossible by many. They showed that they could complete any task, no matter how hard it was, no matter what the cost. The Baltic states and Romania all recognised this, and quickly acquiesced to Stalin's demands.

~~But for some reason, the West viewed it as a failure. Why? The Red Army accomplishes the impossible, and it is thus a "failure"?~~

~~Strike the entire "Deep Operations" section and revise it so it actually makes sense.~~

Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tukhachevsky Film?[edit]

As of this writing in summer 2010 there is a feature film about Tukhachevsky, uploaded in ten minute installments on YouTube. The transliteration of the title is "Tukhachevsky: Conspiracy Marshal". There are no English subtitles. Does anyone know where I can find a description or review of this film? It looks very interesting. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sanity Inspector (talk • contribs) 02:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this film. If I understand with my poor russian language, it is about cooperation between marshal Tukhachevsky and Ludwig Beck(chief of general staff of Wehrmacht) against Stalin and Hitler and about prepairing plot to overthrow these two totalitarian leaders.--213.220.243.20 (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture?[edit]

I am not sure about this, because according english subtitles, main hero(commander Kotov) talk with brigade commander Lapin. Tukhachevsky is not mentioned.--213.220.243.20 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malinovszkijcsalád.JPG[edit]

Unless, I am mistaken and the Tukhachevsky and Malinovsky family were one and the same, the photo File:Malinovszkijcsalád.JPG is placed here in error. In Hungarian, the image name clearly indicates that the photo is of the Malinovsky family. (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Richard M. Watt[edit]

Is the person notable?

We don't quote here, we rather paraphrase.Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Later a long quote from Montefiore.Xx236 (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mikhail Tukhachevsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929120459/http://victory.mil.ru/lib/books/memo/vasilevsky/08.html to http://victory.mil.ru/lib/books/memo/vasilevsky/08.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]