This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The relevant text from reference [Valeriy N. Zamulin (2012) Prokhorovka: The Origins and Evolution of a Myth, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 25:4, 582-595, DOI: 10.1080/13518046.2012.730391)] is:
"A commission headed by Party Central Committee Secretary G.M. Malenkov arrived from Moscow to investigate the reasons for such high losses. The investigation lasted for two weeks, and then its conclusions were submitted to Stalin. The question posed was whether or not the 5th Guards Tank Army commander should be removed from his post and sent before a military tribunal. Rotmistrov’s fate was hanging by a thread until the end of July, when through the efforts of the Chief of the General Staff Marshal of the
Soviet Union A.M. Vasilevsky the wrath of the Supreme Commander finally subsided, and at the end of August 1943"
The current version implies Stalin considered a court martial on the 12th July ,"...and on the evening of 12 July he scolded Rotmistrov via a phone call.[153] He considered sacking Rotmistrov and having him court-martialed, but ended up not doing so.[154] The same evening, he dispatched Zhukov...".
Zamulin is very negative towards Rotmistrov throughout the article and does not provide a reference regarding this investigation. There is very little evidence regarding the proposed court martial in other sources- most follow Zamulin. Unless another source is found, this sentence is best removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lofaolain (talk • contribs) 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the way it is written, it sounds like that was same day, although not explicitly stated as so. The sentence should have "later" somewhere in there. About removing it, I feel like if other authors are repeating it, then it adds more validity, although that of course doesn't prove that it is true. EyeTruth (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I suggest removing "He considered sacking..." and adding "Two weeks after the battle a commission arrived to investigate the cause of such high losses and the role of Rotmistrov in the battle [154]." at the end of the paragraph. That is correct order of events. Incidentally, according to Zamulin the end of the process was "Rotmistrov was awarded the Order of Suvorov 1st Degree for his role in the Kursk Battle" (once Stalin's anger had died down). Lofaolain (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Good suggestion. But the statement begs for the outcome of the investigation. It's a cliffhanger that never gets answered. It needs some work. EyeTruth (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Made the changes. EyeTruth (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no mention of the court-martial in "Zamulin 2012, p. 643". I suggest going with the version "A commission was dispatched to investigate the cause of the high losses and the role of Rotmistrov in the battle; its findings were submitted to Stalin two weeks later, and he considered sacking Rotmistrov but did not do so after the Chief of the General Staff Aleksandr Vasilevsky interceded. Rotmistrov was later awarded the Order of Suvorov 1st Degree for his role in the Kursk Battle [155]". Those are the facts in the Zamulin article. Lofaolain (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree, it was just a military tribunal, although the way other sources have described that falling-out between Stalin and Rotmistrov feel very court-martialish (e.g. Rotmistrov's own account of the falling-out as reported by Christopher Lawrence in his 2015 book and also Zamulin in his 2017 book on the Battle of Kurk). But you are correct. It shouldn't be characterized as a court-martial in the article. Rotmistrov was NOT awarded the Order of Suvorov 1st Degree for the Kursk Strategic Operation. He received it in February 1943 after capturing the city of Kursk during Operation Little Saturn. I agree with the rest of your suggestion. But the part about Order of Suvorov is incorrect. EyeTruth (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Addendum. I rechecked the source cited in the article to see where you got the Suvorov thing from. What the source mentions is the Order of Kutuzov, which is correct, although this is typically awarded for defensive feats and not for offensive, and is also considered a lesser military medal. In fact, Vatutin nominated Rotmistrov for an Order of Suvorov for the Battle of Kursk (according to Rotmistrov's account), but Mikhail Kalinin (the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet) instead awarded him Order of Kutuzov. I get that you feel like present-day historians are hard on Rotmistrov, but there is very good reason for it. He deliberately perpetuated a false narrative that led to a multi-decade mischaracterization of the battle of Prokhorovka. It wasn't until massive declassification of Soviet archives began in the 1990s did the truth start coming out, as comparison with German archives became possible. On a side note, I don't think medals should be mentioned within the main body of article, as that can quickly snowball; most, if not all, of the Soviet commanders mentioned in the article (Zhadov, Vatutin, etc.) got a medal for the battle. EyeTruth (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the mention of court-martial and replaced it with "military tribunal". EyeTruth (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
