Misplaced Pages

User talk:K.e.coffman

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 01:41, 18 May 2019 (Substing templates: {{Unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:41, 18 May 2019 by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) (Substing templates: {{Unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archiving icon
Archives
Nov 2015 * Dec 2015
Jan/Feb 2016 * Mar 2016
April 2016 * May 2016
June 2016 * July 2016
August 2016 * Sept 2016
Oct 2016 * Nov 2016
Dec 2016 * January 2017
Feb 2017 * March 2017
April 2017 * May 2017
June 2017 * July 2017
August 2017 * Sept 2017
Oct 2017 * Nov 2017
Dec 2017 * January 2018
Feb 2018 * March 2018
April 2018 * May 2018
June 2018 * July 2018
August 2018 * Sept 2018
Oct 2018 * Nov 2018
Dec 2018 * Jan 2019
Feb 2019 * March 2019
April 2019 * May 2019

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Albert Speer

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For de-mythologising Albert Speer. Szzuk (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: no, thank you — since you are doing most of the work. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Kudos to each of you for an FA article, which requires fine, detailed, npov work. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I had stopped editing the article and unwatched because I decided too much work was required. Your edits brought me back. I've slightly altered the wording of the barnstar on the assumption it is more in line with your work (revert it if you prefer). I keep my own personal userpages empty, it is my way of dealing with the obvious. Szzuk (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: Thank you; but I've just started the process. It did make me read Martin Kitchen's book. I can't say I enjoyed it as Speer seems such a vapid character :). In any case, I changed the barnstar language to "de-mythologising" since that's what my userpage is mostly about.
I've enjoyed collaborating on the article! I hope that FAR closes soon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the myth is extraordinary. He kills millions, manipulates himself into being the "good Nazi" and it last decades. It is crazy stuff. Still, I'll be glad when it closes! Szzuk (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I've started editing Heinrich Himmler, the book I have is Peter Longerich, is the source any good? Have you read? Szzuk (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: Yes, I would say it's a definitive source. I've not read this book, but I read Longerich's biography of Goebbels; it was insightful and well written. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I can tell you that both of his biographies on each of those subjects are two of the best; and Dianna and I used each of those books when bringing both articles up to GA. Kierzek (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I might have a read of Goebbels and edit a bit of that, Goring is something of an unknown to me. Thanks for the info. Szzuk (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
You’re welcome; Speer is something of an unknown to me, and I only spot read his autobio years ago and have not read the Bios on him. Cheers, John.

Speer myth

Your edit referencing the Rommel myth made me think of creating User:Szzuk/Speer myth. I'm not really sure if I will proceed with it, the problem is that there is quite a lot of material in the main article so it could be suggested for a merge or deleted as a fork, as with Rommel. Good work on Rommel's myth anyway. Szzuk (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Szzuk: if there's more to say, then indeed the Speer myth could be spun out into a separate article. The current section in the Speer article is about the right size, so I would not add much new material there.
Speaking of myth-makers, a good article to source & rewrite would be Heinz Guderian. I've started on it a while back but got distracted. Would you be interested in collaborating on it? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, why not. I gather he's notable for Blitzkreig. I think probably GA would be a good place to work towards, but not with any particular time frame in mind. Szzuk (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I added a bit to his later life section. The source I'm using, Hart, isn't that good for myth debunking. I will have to see what else I can find. Szzuk (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
To get a proper measure of how influential Guderian really was on German tank doctrine, you need to start with Liddell Hart, who inflated his role in exchange for a comment that he based the doctrine on Liddell Hart's theories. It's been a very long time since I've dug into this, but I'd start with Brian Bond's Liddell Hart: a study of his military thought and John Mearsheimer's Liddell Hart and the Weight of History.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
My impression is that he was an average military man who was in the right time/place to advance his career. He took advantage of his links with Hitler, bigged himself up and was lucky to evade a war crimes trial. Both sources I've read use language right out of his books, so it all looks very Albert Speer like. I haven't got into the nitty gritty of the military battles yet and haven't seen much on Liddel Hart up to this point. It will be interesting to have a look. Szzuk (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The myth that Liddell Hart spread is that Guderian was practically the inventor of blitzkrieg warfare, based on his prewar publications, whereas the reality was far more complex. He was a pretty decent commander, but not great, IMO, and he did emphasize that the panzers needed radios to coordinate their efforts, which was essential to their success, also IMO. There's a large number of sources on the development of blitzkrieg tactics as it's attracted all of the academics interested in military innovation/revolution in military affairs-type stuff, so be prepared.
In the article on Rommel you claim he conspired with Nazi propaganda to create a myth about himself, including after the war (and after his own death. Did he do this from beyond the grave?). Almost all of the information on Rommel comes from his private records where he was extremely critical of himself and he blames himself for the loss in North Africa by upsetting the Italians when he lied to them previously. He admits his own faults readily and did not mythify his actions at all.
Oh, and he was force to commit suicide by Hitler and had no time to alter his records to somehow manipulate future perception. They are original records from the battlefield, not propaganda pieces.
What you are claiming is clearly untrue and is clearly disruptive editing. And this is not the only article you have done it on. You also made a similar claim about Speer, that his story about wanting to gas Hitler was made up in 1952. In reality this story was brought up years earlier during his trial when he claimed he could not access the air vents, and the other Nazis famously made jokes about "The second most powerful man in Germany didnt have a ladder". This is only one example of your claims being easily debunked. I could go on for hours after reading that article.
The claims you are making are clearly not based on facts and you are clearly making disruptive changes to articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B016:5BC7:E931:90D2:7F07:9F39 (talk • contribs)

Apparent topic ban evasion

The post immediately above appears to be topic ban evasion by Special:Contributions/DbivansMCMLXXXVI. The same applies to the post further down on the page: #How do stories of anti-nazi behavior somehow serve as pro-nazi propaganda? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft rejections

I appreciate all the work you do at AFC and I can understand the frustration as a reviewer when it seems inundated with garbage or unencyclopedic topics but please be cautious about which drafts you outright reject. Rejection really should only be used for patently unencyclopedic submissions and repeated (especially after discussion) submissions of non-notable junk like vanity spam. Drafts like these: have a slew of problems and more than likely aren't notable but they're mostly also first time submissions and not outright unencyclopedic. So I guess what I'm asking is maybe to refrain from using the rejection option save for special, obvious cases. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Praxidicae: Thank you for your message. I'm not sure I agree with the premise. I check the notability of subjects before rejecting drafts, which the rejection feature appears to be designed for: "n - topic is not notable". I generally comment on the rejections, i.e. "does not meet WP:NCORP", to give the submitter an idea of why the draft was rejected.
Whether the review is 1st or 4th, it does not make much sense to implicitly ask the author to keep working on a non-viable draft. One of the subjects you cite, DeskTime, has been deleted from mainspace twice, for example. Assessing that these drafts more than likely aren't notable but stating, via the decline template, that users are "encouraged to edit the submission" seems unkind and also disrespectful of the submitter's time and effort. Perhaps this is worth discussing at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation as people seem to have different ideas as to what the rejection feature is for. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Police Battalion 322

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Police Battalion 322 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AugusteBlanqui -- AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Police Battalion 322

The article Police Battalion 322 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Police Battalion 322 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 AugusteBlanqui -- AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: thank you for the quick review. I'll look at the comments you left and address, if possible. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Nice article. BTW - K.e. if you have time, take a look at the Feldgendarmerie article. It needs work, if you have time. Carry on, Kierzek (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kierzek: Off the top of my head, I don't have sources on Feldgendarmerie. Are you aware of any recent studies? --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
No, that is the problem. I was hoping maybe Blood or Westermann, or one of your "Clean Wehrmacht" sources, such as Wette, might have something. Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kierzek: No luck. Blood does not include it in the index, while Westermann has two very passing mentions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Guderian

I've been trying to track down mention of his war crimes. He would be involved but there isn't much I can find. Do you have any sources? Szzuk (talk)

@Szzuk: I've added a bit from Felix Römer (2012); I'll look further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I added a bit more so I think that is ok now. His attitude towards antisemitism seems oddly benign for a high ranking Nazi. Have you seen anything else? Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: Well, he was technically not a "Nazi" (i.e. a Nazi Party member), but rather Nazi-adjacent. I found it interesting that Hart writes that Guderian's moves to Nazify the Wehrmacht in the wake of the 20 July plot suggest someone with a guilty conscience who is trying to cover his tracks. By 1944, the Nazification of the Wehrmacht was complete, with Guderian being a key contributor. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I will see if i can fill the acting chief section today. Szzuk (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
On the matter of crimes, Guderian was "lucky" not to have been in command in 1942-43, the height of the Wehrmacht criminality on the Eastern Front. So there might not be more to find. I think what's in the article is good for now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I updated the Invasion of Poland recently, reading it again today it looks too neutral and focussed on the military advance. I think there should be some mention of the carnage, civilian casualties etc. I'm not sure were to go with that one, as it must somehow be linked to Guderian, not a generalised thing. Szzuk (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Everything has been referenced and there are no major omissions in content that I can see. I've requested a copyedit from the guild of copyeditors and I'll start a re-write of the lead shortly. I think this is getting close to GA, what do you think? Szzuk (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Szzuk: Yes, it's been a huge improvement. After the c/e, the article would be ready for GA. I might add a bit from The Myth of the Eastern Front; that's why I added it to the bibliography.
I highly recommend the book; I found it through my google books searches for information on Franz Kurowski. It's been really helpful in understanding why some Misplaced Pages pages look like vessels for reproducing various myths about Nazi Germany (see Albert Speer's, c. 2015). It also explains why certain myths are fiercely defended. You'll see some of that in the history of Guderian's article as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I have tried to source Myth on the Eastern Front, alas I can find no library here that will supply it to me, and it is outside my budget to buy. The content on Guderian in popular culture looks interesting, are there any online sources I could check? Szzuk (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: Bummer! Google Books preview may help: . I searched: Guderian popular culture, and the book was one of the first results. I know that accessibility varies by region; I can see good chunks of the book from where I am. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I will see what I can use from google books. Another thought, to those readers unaware of Clean Wehrmacht the section might be interpreted as buying into it. Szzuk (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking for a quote saying what the Soviets would have done if he'd been captured by them. My sources aren't saying anything, have you got anything? Szzuk (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I've not come across anything like this. But what's interesting is that Guderian was the only commander of a Panzer group that took part in Barbarossa (out of four) to survive the war and not to have been convicted.
@Szzuk: --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I've had another look but can't come up with anything very strong. I finished updating the lead. Szzuk (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Another user has given the article a copyedit, it will probably be another week or two before the GOCE do theirs. I should imagine it will sail through GA, I will leave you to nominate it. I think if it went to FAC they would ask for more material, adding huge quantities isn't really my thing. Guderian was more varied than Speer. I'm going to have a read through 'smiling' Albert Kesselring. Szzuk (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: Sounds good; I will do a joint nomination. I still want to flesh out the Clean Wehrmacht section. Will get to it shortly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I've got hold of a copy of "Nazi Germany Confronting the Myths" by Catherine Epstein. It summarises well and basically says Blitzkreig was irrelevant to Poland, the Poles were under prepared, only 14 of the 54 batallions were armored (most troops walked there), and up against the combined strength of Germany and the Soviet Union they never stood a chance. I will see if I can find anything else to add. Szzuk (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

How do stories of anti-nazi behavior somehow serve as pro-nazi propaganda?

I have noticed that you have repeatedly stated in several articles that anti-nazi stories are in fact pro-nazi.

Please explain how stories about German soldiers opposing Hitler or the actions of the SS are pro Nazi propaganda. For instance, you repeatedly claim that Franz Kurowski's stories involving anti-nazi behavior by German soldiers are in fact pro-nazi propaganda written by the Nazi media. Why would the Nazi media push stories of resistance against themselves?

This does not seem to make any sense. Please do explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B016:5BC7:31D8:FFCB:7B75:B67B (talk • contribs)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality please

The page Barbara Engelking is biased. Her texts have been criticized by Gontarczyk and Domański. This WIkipedia is based on cooperation, not on removal of texts you don't like or don't understand. Why don't you rather correct my editions? ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx236 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Xx236 the entry about the criticism is useless as it stands. Users are responsible for their contributions. If you want to include this material, you should provide a detailed and well referenced account of the criticism(s) and not just a link to a Polish language web site and expect readers to understand it.. Please also sign your talk page messages. That said, I suggest you continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks for your cooperation.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Book

A book you may be interested in since you have written several articles which touch on such matters: Evans, Richard J. (1989). "In Hitler's Shadow West German Historians and the Attempt to Escape the Nazi Past." ISBN 978-0-394-57686-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kierzek (talk • contribs)

Thanks; I will check it out. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)