Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:48, 3 May 2018

Archives

Nov 2015 * Dec 2015 January–February 2016 March 2016 * April 2016 May 2016 * June 2016 July 2016 * August 2016 Sept 2016 * Oct 2016 Nov 2016 * Dec 2016 January 2017 * February 2017 March 2017 * April 2017 May 2017 * June 2017 July 2017 * August 2017 Sept 2017 * October 2017 Nov 2017 * Dec 2017 January 2018 * Feb 2018 March 2018 * April 2018

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 12 sections are present.

Doenitz and Raeder's pro-Nazi orders

I first read the articles on Karl Dönitz and Erich Raeder back in 2013, when I first got into Misplaced Pages. I recall that the articles included orders by one and/or the other issued to the U-boat force advocating Nazi discipline. I can't seem to find those entries now. As you know, the U-boat force has one of the "least Nazi" reputations of the German WWII forces, as does Doenitz, who of course was designated by Hitler as his heir. If these orders can be properly sourced, exposing his loyalty to the regime he served so well would be useful. As for aircraft kills, my recollection from years ago is that all three of the "300 club" scored more than half of their kills against unarmed Soviet transport planes, and Marseille was perhaps the only 100+ pilot with most of his kills against the UK and US. I have not looked up these "facts" in 40+ years, so I could be wrong. RobDuch (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@RobDuch: I believe that the Raeder article was split at some point, with the WWII content being largely moved to Erich Raeder during World War II. This does not make much sense to me, as Raeder is perhaps best known for WWII. I believe the order you've mentioned in that spin-out article. Should the WWII content be perhaps merged back?

"Aces"

You're correct about Marseille, but wrong about the others. The Germans rarely encountered Soviet transports, so virtually all of the kills by the Germans on the Eastern Front were of armed aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: According to ace (military), to be considered an "ace" one had to achieve success over an equally skilled opponent. For fighter pilots, shooting down bombers or ground attack aircraft? Not so impressive. I always chuckle when I see statements such as "All but one of his victories were claimed over the Eastern Front, including 16 Il-2 Sturmoviks. Sturmovik was a ground-attack aircraft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Even the crappiest aircraft were armed. Heck, the Night Witches usually had an anti-aircraft gun, and those were Po-2 wooden biplanes. (BTW, some Soviet aircraft were so crappy (for combat purposes because they were originally civilian planes) that they were actually very hard to shoot down. The Po-2 was a crop duster not intended for combat but crop dusting, to the point is was so slow German pilots found them nearly impossible to shoot down because they would stall while trying to line up shoot it down. Hence why the one pilot that shot down four night witch planes in one night was objectively notable, because members of the regiment's remembered it for years as the night the regiment was grounded. (And the incident has been written about in Russian a lot because it was a statistical anomaly) Point being, mass deletion is not a good idea and its better to improve/rewrite than delete in mass before fully reading the English and Russian versions. Ace may not just mean aircraft equivalent, but depends on how hard each type of plane was to shoot down. For example, in the pacific war, shooting down 5 wildcats would not be very impressive, but shooting down 5 hellcats? Very different. I could provide more examples if you would like, I might even dig up a photo of a Po-2 with an anti-aircraft gun mounted.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard that an ace had to shoot down an equally skilled opponent and I've read a lot of ace biographies over the years, although I've never gotten into the WWI aces. I'd definitely want to see the cite for that. A kill was a kill as far as they were concerned; didn't matter if it was an unarmed C-47 over Arnhem or a Typhoon V fighter over Normandy. Don't knock the Il-2, it was probably the most heavily armored aircraft of the war and was very difficult to shoot down until the Germans figured out its vulnerabilities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I was going by this, from Ace (military):

• The ace was supposed to be in control of his destiny, and could only be defeated by an equally skillful opponent. Hence, being shot down by ground anti-aircraft fire was considered to be a dishonour.

Shooting down slow-moving ground-attack aircraft or bombers does not appear to be that significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe in propaganda terms, but the actual men and their organizations had absolutely no problem giving credit for shooting down observation planes and/or bombers of any kind in WWI to the best of my knowledge. That mythology may have lingered over the interwar period, but nonetheless every WWII-era air force gave credit for shooting down non-fighters. Now I'm mildly curious what exact lens Robertson is looking through, although his title seems to indicate mythologizing the "knights of the air" for the home front and ignoring the battlefront itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: The concept of "ace" and the number of aircraft shot down are different things, in my mind. I don't dispute that the airmen were given credit for shooting down observation planes, etc. But whether that makes someone an "ace (military)" is another question. The latter seems to be more of cultural phenomenon, which also includes the propaganda image. In short, Germany had too many successful (in terms of aircraft shot down) pilots; not all could become "aces" / "propaganda heros". K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably so, but the tallies kept by the organizations created aces and those tallies included non-fighter aircraft, and even observation balloons at certain times and in organizations. So I'm not sure how we can feasibly separate the two given that most sources about individual pilots don't separate the two, other than to discuss war bond tours, photographs with the Führer, etc. (i.e. the most important aspects in terms of the pilot's life) The cultural aspects seem to be strongest in WW1, but that's not something that I've ever been interested in, so I really couldn't say one way or another.

The problem that I see here is that the most common usage nowadays is simply somebody who's shot down a lot of aircraft/destroyed lots of tanks, etc., whereas you're focusing on the cultural/propaganda aspects. So I think that there's a certain amount of talking past one another going on. We should probably split the article in some way, or separate the concepts somehow, although I'm uncertain what the best way to do that is. Might be best to put the cultural aspects in their own section later in the article as the tally of victories is the basis for the propaganda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Robertson, Linda R. (2003). The Dream of Civilized Warfare: World War I Flying Aces and the American Imagination. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. p. xviii. ISBN 9780816642700.

Your GA nomination of Erich Hoepner

The article Erich Hoepner you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Erich Hoepner for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Euryalus -- Euryalus (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Erich Hoepner and the current Arbcom case request

Hi. Your Arbcom case request includes references to the article on Erich Hoepner, as an example of the alleged issue. As you know I recently did a GA review on that article, in my capacity as a random member of Milhist. Am also in a position to vote on the case request in my capacity as a random member of Arbcom.

I haven't (yet) recused from the case because I don't see this piece of fairly minor content analysis as impinging on the likelihood of a fair hearing. But am keen to get your views either way, as a principal participant in the request as it stands. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Euryalus: thank you for checking. I don't have any issues with your participation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Clean Wehrmacht tall tale

Inspired by the Arbcom case. See, I thought that Clean Wehrmacht was a concept about war crimes and complicity in crimes against humanity, without including military incompetence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: well, you could say that there's an overarching "Wehrmacht myth", but the "clean Wehrmacht" is such a central pillar in it, that the two are pretty much the same, in my mind. I have a section on my user page dedicated to the Three Wehrmacht alibis that covers what, when he's being less generous, the historian Jonathan House calls "the three Wehrmacht lies". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, in general I agree that the coverage of WW2 on enwiki is often fairly different from that of dewiki and often questionably so. I see from comparing de:Schlacht um Moskau with Battle of Moscow that the latter seems to take the "three alibis" you speak of far more seriously than the former (and if there is a consensus that the German command misrepresented the reasons for its defeat in Moscow, it needs to be mentioned somewhere). We don't have a page for de:KZ Osaritschi at all, and Josef Harpe does not mention any war crimes period. And I am glad that someone highlighted the misuse of "Russia(n/s)" in the context of WW2 coverage, finally. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your essay

Only just noticed it so I added a comment on the Bugle talk page. I was surprised at what you have found, even though it's been discussed on the MilHist page often enough. In my furrow obsolete texts aren't as ideologically questionable, just bad scholarship or the obsolete stuff of commercial history (the Schlieffen Plan comes to mind) endlessly repackaged like the Hitler channel. It seems to me that Wiki rules contain a conservative corollary which makes truth a matter of quantity of sources, rather than quality. Is there a nationality correlation with the sources (authors and editors) used to whitewash the Hitler regime? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: This 1992 quote from Gerhard Weinberg may explain some of what we are seeing on en.wiki:

The single most difficult task all those working on World War II in Europe and North Africa face is the need to penetrate the fog of distortion and confusion generated by the vast German memoir literature, especially that of the generals like Heinz Guderian and Erich von Manstein. Long the basic staple on which secondary literature was based, closer examination of these works with reference to contemporary evidence has shown the memoirs to be almost invariably inaccurate, distorted and, in some instances, simply fake… Scholars in all countries need to liberate their own minds and their own writings from a preoccupation with an enormous collection of dubious works and from the influence of an even larger mass of secondary works largely based on those memoirs.’

References

1. Gerhard Weinberg, ‘Some Thoughts on World War II’ in The Journal of Military History, vol. 56, no. 4 (October, 1992) pp 659-660.

Unfortunately, the numerous sources that you mention are often questionable / hobbyist in nature, rather than historical scholarship. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Presidency of Donald Trump

I am going to ask you self-revert this before an AE is filed for breaking consensus required. PackMecEng (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Thank you for attempting to resolve this dispute here. I do, however, see rough consensus for inclusion. According to my review of the TP discussion, here's the breakdown:

• Yes: SPECIFICO Drmies Volunteer Marek BullRangifer K.e.coffman Neutrality (6)

• No: PackMecEng Politrukki Atsme Orser67 (4)

Aquillion's position was a bit unclear, but I think it was leaning yes. So far, no one else has expressed concerns. If you still have objections, I can raise the issue on the article's Talk page and ping everyone — especially Aquillion, to clarify his position. If I miscounted or misinterpreted anything, please let me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You forgot Markbassett for oppose. So that would be 6 to 5, but even if it was 6 to 4 that is not enough for consenses. So one last time, I ask you self-revert. PackMecEng (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at AE

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#K.e.coffman. PackMecEng (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Closed as "no action": permalink. Please only file reports about actual violations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope you will keep what the admins said in mind and hopefully will never need to head back. PackMecEng (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: I hope you will keep what the admins said in mind and hopefully will not file frivolous reports in the future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

History

Just read your Signpost article, excellent and important work. I've come across issues like this over the years in historiography topics. For a while there were editors scrubbing the early medieval articles of "Barbarian" replacing with "Germans". Or the Turkish nationalists who were adamant they were the direct genetic heirs of the Huns (historians actually believe the Huns were a brand name, like a football team, not a racial tribal division). Or those who believe the Dark Ages (historiography) were actually dark (there were some problems in the period but it was mostly a later invention by Italian Humanists to restore the glory of the Roman Empire). Misplaced Pages needs more historiography-focused articles (like Dark Ages (historiography)) so these issues can be stated clearly. But it's a specialized field to be sure, and they tend to be honey traps for those who disagree. -- GreenC 02:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: thank you for the comment. There's an article Historiography of World War II but it's rather poor content-wise and sort of goes on unrelated tangents. I.e. why is there a whole section dedicated to one (rather dated) book? Historiography of World War II#Taylor The Origins of the Second World War (1961). Is historiography something that you enjoy working on? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wolf-Udo Ettel

In case you are not watching the page above an editor has brought it back to life. As part of NPP I have reverted to you but don't plan to get further involved in this content dispute (of there is one). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting example

Hi, We've both worked on the Hermann-Bernhard Ramcke article in the past, but I've had another go at it today. As shown by my changes, even after the earlier efforts to improve the article it was still rather lacking. Noticeably, the text downplayed the aggressive German attack on Italy in September 1943. The sources on the Battle of Brest make it clear that Ramcke was a hard liner determined to fight to the death (in what was a largely futile battle), and I've tried to note that as well. Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There was also white washing of Ramcke in the GA on his opponent at Brest: . Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Thanks for your work on the article; Ramcke is quite famous for causing a furor in West Germany in 1952 when he publicly called the Western Allies "the real war criminals". That after having been released from prison early due to personal intervention of Chancellor Adenauer, who was incensed to the point of wanting to have Ramke prosecuted. That happened at a HIAG meeting, where the leaders had to backpedal and call a press conference to disavow, or something to this effect :-). --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

GAR for Rommel Myth

Hi K.e.coffman. I've closed this GAR in which you participated. I don't think the closure has any bearing on the ongoing arbitration case at all, all the information is still there, and the GAR can always be revisited down the line. Fish+Karate 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: thank you for letting me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Kluge

I have not forgotten about Kluge. All of the books I requested arrived today. I will start working on the article either later today or tomorrow; I think I could start with an "Early life and career" section that covers his life prior to the Second World War.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Great to hear. I've already filled out the Battle of Moscow a bit; will look for Barbarossa next. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The book Hitler's Generals offers a lot more than I expected on his early life. I have more to write about on a plot against Hitler in 1938 where Kluge was an accomplice then I can work on Poland and France. We can move this discussion to the talk page if you prefer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: yes, we can continue on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Germany in World War II

Dear K.e.coffman, would you care to proofread my little makeover of the "History of Germany" article? It was so glaringly wrong that I felt immediate action was required. I'm not much of an expert for this period of German history though. It would be greatly appreciated. Greetings, --Prüm (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I worked on it some after reading the above note, but it needs additional work and cites added. I can work on it more, later when I have more time. Kierzek (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Prüm and Kierzek: thank you for the edits; loved the edit summary: Clean up (what fool wrote this?). "Brilliantly successful", "stunningly successful", the obligatory "brutal Russian winter, the coldest in 500 years on record", "pesky Churchill", etc. :-) --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is so funny as you let it stand. I am dead serious on this. Get your act together or find a different venue to pull your vulture act. For someone who claims genuine concern, you're way too tongue-in-cheek. --Prüm (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Stopping by: That "fool" was an established professional historian and seasoned editor, albeit not an expert on German history/WWII, which illustrates how prevalent, among other things, the whole narrative of General Winter is. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "General Winter", whoever that's supposed to be. I'm talking about framing someone, or indeed a whole ethnic group, for abusive purposes. We are past the age of genocide. --Prüm (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Prüm: Just to clear that up: I commented upon a popular narrative of the reasons for the German defeat before Moscow, not upon a narrative by some real General Winter. I was sure that you would have understood the reference, because it was a well known saying at the time. You could find it in Theodor Plivier's novel Moscow, for example, and Johannes Hürter takes that up as a key to the German remembrance of that campaign. Frankly, I do not understand what you are referring to by framing ... a whole ethnic group and so forth, but since I am already providing unsolicited comments on somebody else's talk page, it is not for me to inquire. But let me tell you this, calling other editors "fools" in your edit summary because you disgagree with the content is unlikely to be understood as dead serious, but rather as being sarcastic and that would also have been the case in German. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Prüm, wont be responding, as he has been blocked. Kierzek (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect his account was compromised in the past day or two. His editing got really strange and the account then "requested" that it be perma banned, claiming it was a longtime troll. His behavior over the past 48 hours or so doesn't at all jive with his previous editing. We've had a spate of attempted account breaches in the past couple of days, mine included. In all likelihood his was successfully taken over. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Warning on Talk:Albert Speer‎

You recently gave me a warning on Talk:Albert Speer‎ (Personal attack removed)

The subject we are discussing has already been settled in several other pages on the subject and is properly references in all of them. (Personal attack removed) DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@DbivansMCMLXXXVI: I refer you to this. Pardon my bluntness, but it looks to me that someone needs to get a better handle on how to identify reliable sources. If you continue to shout by TYPING IN ALL CAPS, people will just tune you out. Please see WP:FOC for more advice.

You've mentioned that the matter has already been settled in several other pages. Could you let me know what these pages are? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)