quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Lawrence:
As Rich has a better command of the English language and conventions that I do, it would be useful to get his opinion.

---

But when do you ever listen to me correcting your English?

I would trasnlate the terms by what they were meant to imply, that is:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Lawrence:
By the way Niklas, what transliteration system did you use for the Russian names in your "Kursk 1943" book?

---

Frankly I don’t know. We did not put particularly much effort into the description of the events, rather we focused on how the forces looked when the battle began, what happened to the units during the battle, what were their condition at the end of the battle and the consequences of the battle. This meant the for most of the text we could rely on well established English terms for unit types, equipment etc. The transliteration became a problem mainly for names on geographical features and persons, both of which appear relatively sparsely in our text. Our intention was to conform to English practises, but to what extent we succeeded is beyond my capabilities to judge. Our archival research mainly focused on the statistical data, hence much of the rest of the text is based on secondary sources. These include books and articles in Russian, but also many Soviet books translated to German (in the former DDR) or English or even other languages. Thus we often had to guess how the Russian had been transliterated in the book we used, thus guessing backwards and then make our own transliteration from Russian to English. In the end I would say that we simply were not very systematical in this respect. I just hope that this will not cause any reader to misunderstand us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jukka Juutinen:
Seriously speaking, I believe German ranks must be given in German and Russian ranks in transliteration.

---

Naw, that is hardly a fair and balanced approach....either both in English, both in transliteration, or both in their native language.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jukka Juutinen:

BTW Niklas Zetterling, you mentioned that you are wrting further books at the moment. Might you be able to tell us about them? Who is going to publish them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jukka Juutinen:
And have you considered an English translations of books already published in Swedish, such yours and Tamelander´s Norway book?

---

Yes, I have considered that. The Norway 1940 book has sold very well in Sweden and has also been translated to Norwegian. My intention have been to look for a publisher on this book at about the same time as I look for a publisher for the forthcoming Korsun book, but perhaps I should not wait for that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jukka Juutinen:

That book received excellent review in Finnish military journal Sotilasaikauslehti. Note, though I am Finn, jag talar inte bra svenska!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Chrisman:
Walter von Hünersdorff was mortally wounded on July 15 and initially replaced by Oberst Martin Unrein (Kdr. Pz.Gr.Rgt. 4) and soon thereafter by Oberst Wilhelm Crisolli.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niklas Zetterling:
Are you sure von Hünersdorff was mortally wounded on 15 July. I thought it was on 14 July, but I am just speaking from memory here.

---

Hello Niklas,

You are correct, it was the 14th.

BR.......Jeff

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jukka Juutinen:
Chris, I meant that German ranks in German, Russian ranks in Russian, but transliterated, not in cyrillic(e.g. "mladshii leitenant").

---

I don't beleive in inflicting "mladshii leitenant" on the casual reader from Kansas. It forces me to create an extensive section defined terms, and then the reader must look up what "mladshii" means. It is easier to just call them Junoir Lt. and be done with it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niklas Zetterling:
That is to dispense with ranks as much as possible and write for example "Hans-Ulrich Back, commander of 16th Panzer Division", and don't mention that he was a "Generalmajor". Perhaps I would simply call him "general Back".

---

But then you create a new problem. Was he "Fuehrer" or "Kommandeur" of 16th Panzer Division?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jukka Juutinen:
Niklas, please do not seriously consider that!

---

I seriously do. If ranks are included, they will have to be checked, which takes time. Also, as the discussion here shows, it will be necessary to write something about how ranks are given and why the system has been chosen. As I see it, I rather spend a whole day on nailing down the number of tanks available to a panzer unit on a specific day than spending one minute on finding out the rank of its commander. As I work under constraints, I have to make priorities, and those are an example of that. If the sources readily gives reliable information on rank, it is different. However, if I have to work to find out the rank, it is different. Also, if I find that rank affected decisions, actions or outcome, it is different.
But also my main sources, the German war diaries with annexes, seldom mention decision makers by name. Rather it is often stated in passive voice "the 17th Panzer Division was ordered to …", etc. While formally, this would mean that the superior commander, in this case usually the corps commander had taken the decision and was formally responsible. However, this was far from always the case. Thus, from similar statements in the war diary, it can not – without additional evidence – be ascertained how the decision was made. the consequence of this is that the higher commanders will seldom (relatively) be mentioned. It can of course be argued that this will facilitate the inclusion of ranks. Nevertheless, I will not spend much effort on ranks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich:

(OTOH, I really do like putting one sides ranks and unit ID in italics when they are translated into English, it does save the poor reader from trying to figure out if that was an American or German Colonel Schmidt that was just referred to, and whether he was in the American or German 26th Division. )

---

While I sympathize greatly with the problem....as it took me several days to chase down the ranks (at the time, as opposed to their final rank) and names of the commanders (and that was after I had a researcher do it for me originally)....it still seems that it should be done. Maybe I'm just being a traditionalist here.

Now, as with a lot of my research, I cheated and got some help from the Axis Biographical website (which I gather is pretty accurate), and directly from Jeff Chrisman. For the Soviets, I had a researcher do it (including providing me with biographies).

I did not bother to place anything in italics. Ranks are as given (i.e. Major General), translated into American English (the real English), and I have included a table of equivelent ranks. In the case of the SS, I use Wehrmacht ranks (although I did entertain the idea of translating these characters as "Senoir Assualt Band Leader").

Soviet and German units are distinguished by using "Panzer" vice "Tank", and "Infantry" vice "Rifle". No italics. I use roman numerals for Corps and spell out the name for Armies (for both sides...oddly enough, a number of writers only use that convention for the Germans). In both cases, I do not do so for numbers above 10....and instead just use an arabic number.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Lawrence:

While I sympathize greatly with the problem....as it took me several days to chase down the ranks (at the time, as opposed to their final rank) and names of the commanders (and that was after I had a researcher do it for me originally)....it still seems that it should be done. Maybe I'm just being a traditionalist here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niklas Zetterling:Chris, there semms to be some problem between my ISP and AOL. Every mail I have sent to you the last days bounce back, so I'll answer your last mail this way.

---

How strange. The rest of the world seems to be able to talk to me (certianly the spam keeps arriving).

quote:

---

Kurt Gätzschmanns book was published by himself. Thus no publishing company can be given. The Germans use the term "Selbstverlag" for such titles.

---

Okay thanks. That explains its obscurity and its not very commercial title.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicklas Fredriksson:
I think the explanation for the problem with the e-mails is that AOL somehow decided that all mails from the provider telia.com is spam and therefore reject them. Telia is trying to solve the situation.

Kind rgds
Nick

---

Yes, this is apparently the case. According to AOL, telia.com "is being used to transmit unsolicited bulk e-mail to AOL" and "AOL cannot accept further e-mail transactions from your server or your domain." I have notified telia and they reported that they had notified AOL. We'll see how long this lasts.
I have no problems with any e-mail to other ISP:s though. If you have another e-mail address Chris, please let me know.

quote:

---

If you have another e-mail address Chris, please let me know.

---

My home email is "Ruslan007@aol.com", but as this is still AOL, it doubt it is will solve the problem.

You could send your emails to Rich's home email (richto90@msn.com) and he can forward them to me.

Alternatively, we could just conduct our dicussions on the TDI Forum....although I fear we would both have to curb our tongues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Lawrence:
So everything from Sweden is spam? Apparently someone at AOL has decided that you guys are the next "Red Menace".

---

So it seems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Lawrence:
My home email is "Ruslan007@aol.com", but as this is still AOL, it doubt it is will solve the problem.

---

No it probably won't. I suspect this is a problem that will be solved in a few days.

There was nothing urgent, unless you want a prompt reply on anything.