Talk:Comparative officer ranks of World War II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hermann Göring's title

Didn't Herman Goreing hold the unique rank of Reichmarshal? --PaulinSaudi 02:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)]]

He held the title Reichsmarschall des Grossdeutsches Reiches. Reichsfuhrer SS, held by Himmler but the latter was more political and covered the Gestapo of the SS, not just the Waffen SS and Allegmeine SS shown here. Dainamo 14:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Paul, Added the above title (and corrected my version which was slightly wrong above) Dainamo 15:07, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I was bold enough to add the genitive-"es" after Grossendeutsch to continue the grammar job, and took the chance* of removing those same letters before deutsch (*my high school German from 15 years ago is getting a little rusty...).  :)  --Wernher 00:35, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi thanks for that, my high school German only got a "C" grade so I admit not being fully up to speed! Subsequently I have looked the title up under Goring in the encyclopedia Britannica and they give it as Grossdeutschen Reiches not as I put it. Dainamo 00:07, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Of course, it's Grossdeutchen Reiches as you cite, the genitive -"es" only being applied to the Reich part of the clause. (Referring to my disclaimer: that's what 'rusty' means when it comes to foreign language proficiency...) I wonder whether we should also try and get a genuine German double-s (ß) in there, to complete the historical fix. --Wernher 20:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does anything suggest that this rank is an airforce rank and not a supreme rank covering all services? Should it be colored black? Zocky 05:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear; I too wonder about this. BTW, I think the 'all-service color' is brown now, but your question stands valid. --Wernher 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Empire of the Sun

In the interest of historical accuracy we should absolutely try and get a picture of the Japanese Imperial flag (red "sunbeams" radiating out from the central sun symbol) to put in the table instead of the modern flag presently used. --Wernher 00:35, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've located the flag in question, the Japanese Naval Ensign, on Flags Of The World. Flagspot's disclaimer seems positive towards Wikipedia-type uses of their material, so the only work left is scaling down the image. --Wernher 18:37, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So there, it's done. I wonder whether we should try to coerce the proportions of the flag to be more like most of the others, but am not sure — flags have heraldry-defined official proportions IIRC. Any suggestions? --Wernher 03:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I won't amend this as yet, but wasn't the flag of state still the same as it it today, with the flag shown being only relevant as a naval ensign (such as the white ensign being used by the Royal Navy)? Dainamo 00:07, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are right that the 'rising sun' flag, as it's sometimes known, was in fact the naval ensign. However, it was used as the 'war flag' of all military services in the Japanese Empire, and as such denotes WWII Japan in much the same way that the infamous swastika flag denotes Nazi-Germany. I therefore think that it should be left standing as it is (aside from any layout/proportions changes that might be in order, that is). --Wernher 20:10, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Translations

Is there a good reason why the German ranks in German but the Soviet ones are translated into English?

This is a valid point, and I considered the correct way was to put them in their respective languages. The problem with the Soviet Union was twofold. The first is a minor problem of there not being a single language of the former soviet union. Secondly, assuming the first problem can be overcome because of the overwhelming dominance of Russian, we have the Cyrillic alphabet which is unreadable to most English speakers. Having said that, the Japanese ranks have been presented in their own language but in Latin text and I guess there is no reason why this cannot be done for the Russian ranks. If anyone can do this accurately then I see no obvious reason why it can't be altered. Dainamo 11:27, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done Dainamo 11:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Russian military ranks are derived from the Western ones for the most part. I don't believe that Russian adaptations of Captain, Lieutenant and Major serve any meaningful purpose because these ranks are almost universally translated into their English equivalents anyway (Polkovnik, Colonel, could be an exception because the word is of Slavic origin). Giving adopted translations is enough diversity; for those who want to reaaly know the native spelling in both Latin and Cyrillic, there is a historical review at Russian military ranks. DmitryKo 12:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we have original names for German and Japanese, we must have it for Russian too. If all those ranks were translated into English, this page would be rather dull and uninteresting, but OTOH, it may be useful as a reference. Maybe we should add another table with translated names?

Oh, and the other thing, the NATO equivalent column. NATO neither existed in WWII nor is it a universally acclaimed international organization today. We can show what the equivalent NATO rank is today, but we shouldn't use it as a header column. Zocky 13:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consider the following:

• German ranks are both Western-based and Latin-based.
• Japanese ranks stand out because they are neither based on the Western ranks nor the writing is based on Latin alphabet (although there is official transcription system).
• Russian ranks are Western-based but the Russian alphabet is not Latin-based (and there is no officially-acclaimed transliteration standard, such as Hanyu Pinyin or Nihon-shiki romanizations).
• There are no articles on Japanese military ranks or German military ranks, but there is detailed enough article on Russian military ranks.

That said, I have added the Cyrillic names after looking at Ranks and Insignia of NATO. If you really think that transliterated versions are important, I will add them somewhere as well. But please don't revert to a version of the table that is simply incorrect. DmitryKo 17:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would dispute this. Rank terms such as Podpolkovnik, whether 100% correct transliterations or not, are recognised in English. They are much more useful than direct translations such as "Counter Admiral", which mean nothing in English (better to use the direct equivalent of Rear Admiral than such a bizarre term). -- Necrothesp 10:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Podpolkovnik is, simply, Sub-Polkovnik. Counter Admiral is the adopted version of Konteradmiral/Kontr-Admiral, which is, in turn, a Rear Admiral rank as mentioned in both corresponding articles. Why the ranks are not hyperlinked anyway? DmitryKo 11:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you ask a German what oberst means, they'll tell you it simply means "colonel". Of course it has an ethimology, which we could use to translate it into English. The point is that there is no exact science to translating these ranks, so there's no sense in doing so on this page where they're just listed. Listing them in Cyrillics is about as useful as listing Japanese ranks in katakana. The ranks should be linked and the original spelling and meaning of those words explained in those articles.

And again, NATO ranks are entirely secondary to this table and should not be used as the header column. Zocky

Please don't revert to an older version that is incorrect.

NATO ranks are the one and the only international system that is recognized widely enough; let's just leave it where it is, or we'll be overwhelmed by huge comparison tables. If and when even more widely recognized and non Western-centric system appears, we'll switch to it.

The purpose of this table is to provide inter-military comparative ranks, not to teach native spelling; Senior/Junior Lieutenant vs First/Second Lieutenant gives enough insight on the matter. I'd like to see Japanese ranks translated for the same reasons, as there is still no historical article on the matter. (BTW don't really think Japanese ranks are written in katakana; hiragana or maybe even kanji seems more appropriate.)

I wouldn't mind using transliteration if there was one recognized transliterations system akin to Hepburn, so the readers are not confused with multiple variations of for ex. Старший (Starhy, Starshiy, Starshyy, Starshi, Starshyi, Starshii, Starshiyi and even Starshij and Staršiì (eek) as per official systems) that require at least basic knowledge of Russian/Cyrillic. Including transilerations of common words such as Sub, Senior and Junior is pretty useless IMHO and removing either Cyrillic or translated names harms either Russian-speaking or non-speaking readers respectively. DmitryKo 13:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the encyclopaedia in English language. Put Cyrillic spelling in articles about individual ranks. It doesn't matter what NATO is now - these are ranks from WWII - NATO ranks are approximate modern equivalents, not the other way around. If there's something factually wrong with the table now, go ahead and correct it, but leave it in English. Zocky 19:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, now I see why German ranks are provided as is - all because it's Enlgish-language encyclopaedia! Do you believe that Japanese ranks are provided in plain English as well? What's your point - do you think that writing 'General-leytenant' makes just anyone spell it as "Генерал-лейтенант" /gʲɛnʲɛʀˈal lʲɛjtʲɛ.nˈant/ in a perfect Russian? I for one cannot spell most German ranks because I don't know German alphabet or spelling rules. Why in the world should I add Cyrillic spelling to Lieutenant, General, Admiral etc. or create Leytenant, Kapitan, Admiral (Russia) etc. to simply say that 'Admiral (spelled uhd-mee-RUHL) is Russian for Admiral' etc.? Why not translate 'Senior', 'Junior' or 'Sub' if for example 'Й' is named 'Short I', not 'I kratkoye'?

And you know what? I've removed transliterations/translations and I will revert the changes until there are transliterations, translations or spelling guide for German ranks, because "This is the encyclopaedia in English language" and not in German language. And sorry, providing the headings on the right side if the table could be appropriate for Arabic or Hebrew, not for English. DmitryKo 19:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The German Ranks can be spelled correctly as we are dealing with a language that uses the latin alphabet (double s letter and umlauts excepted). I think Russian ranks in Cyrillic alone is not much use. As a compromise here I have retained Cyrillic but also added transliterations. I will also add a note that there is no standard transliteration method. This is consistent with the German and Japanese ranks insofar that we do not go for full translation (eg Oberst to Colonel) but still render and idea of what the rank would be pronounced like in the given language. Having said that, it would be appropriate if the Kapitan 1-go ranga to Kapitan 2-go ranga could have the abbreviations replaced with a full latin version of the respective ordinal numbers as I and others have no idea how to say "1-go". Is that ok guys? Dainamo 21:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Use English" doesn't just mean "use English language", it also means "use English spelling for expressions in other languages" (like you spell English names in cyrillics in Russian). For languages which use the latin spelling natively, this is no problem, others must be transliterated. The fact that there is no standardized Russian transliteration doesn't stop us from having many articles about Russian people and places in Russia. We keep them at whichever transliterated version we decide is the most common and when listing them in general lists, i.e. not ones specificaly about Russia, we list them in latin spelling only. Doing otherwise consistently across Wikipedia for all languages would be both unsustainable and pointless. Zocky 02:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's not a spelling guide. You demand to transliterate a term that has a standard meaning in English, as opposite to geographical and personal names. This rank name would be useless to anyone who does not know Russian language (and if he knows it, he would learn Cyrillic right from the start so transliteration is useless again). Likewise, I see no point in learning whatever the transliterations of Japanese officer ranks are when it doesn't tell me a thing about their structure, meaning and evolution. In fact, literal translations like "Senior War Master" etc. with native spelling provided in Japanese military ranks would be more appropriate.

(And no, Russians do not transliterate foreign ranks since they borrowed many of them for the Regiments of the new order, even though Russian alphabet has much stronger rules for received pronunciation and most English phonemes besides R and TH are straightforward. You won't encounter эдмирал, кёрнал, мэйджор etc., with the exception of some naval ranks such as Commodore and, sometimes, Commander (коммо́дор, комма́ндер) that are not used by the Russian military.) DmitryKo 12:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In answer to: "Why the ranks are not hyperlinked anyway? DmitryKo": because it would bugger up the nice colour scheme Dainamo 18:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You could provide alternated links, something like Полковник _{transl. equiv.} Генерал-полковник_{transl. equiv.} etc. Some German naval ranks are already linked from Kriegsmarine, and Russian ones are listed in Russian military ranks. DmitryKo 12:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-corresponding rank names

I haven't studied this matter, but shouldn't we include some info about the fact that German and Soviet ranks above Oberst / 'colonel' is one-off in comparison with the names of the western nations' ranks? I presume the rank levels are correct (have no reason to suspect otherwise). --Wernher 03:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As is always the case with rank equivalents, it can be very difficult to make an exact comparison. The comparisons are generally based on level of responsibility (at the start of the war, at least, most German divisions were under generalleutnants, whereas Allied divisions were almost always under major generals throughout) and the fact that the Germans had the extra rank of generaloberst at the top instead of brigadier at the bottom. This is not an exact science, though - NATO ranking reckons British and American corporals and British lance corporals and American PFCs are equivalent in rank, whereas their actual responsibilities tell a very different story. -- Necrothesp 10:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

in this case, it is very much an exact science. When the Bundeswehr was created, Brigadier Generals were considered equivalent to the old "Generalmajor" and so on upwards. Your comparison concerning Division command is also quite fitting. Thufir

There were a handful who held the rank of Generalfeldmarschall in WWII and there were two Grossadmiral (although the two were the leader and former leader of the Kriegsmarine so it was virtually a one man rank) I have no idea of the number of Chief Marshalls and Marshall of the Soviet Union there were. I suppose where we are sure such as Gereralissimo of the Soviet Union we should make it clear who held it. Dainamo 20:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there an elaborate system to decide who salutes whom first when 2 officers from different countries meet, i.e. who outranks whom? Do we know if a British major general outranked a Soviet generalmajor in ceremonial issues? Zocky 13:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On this point, the German maj general definately corresponded to a Briagdier-Gen (see also comments from Necrothesp above)General/Brigadier in the US/UK with a similar responsibility of command. The rank before Field Marshal was filled with the Rank of a Colonel-General. Although I am not sure of the Russian commande euqivalents, the fact that they also had a Colonel General (although in their case below a full genernal) and no briagdier-general, it seems logical that they were comparible to the German Ranks. However, as has been said, this is not an exact science and it remains open to any editors with further knowledge. Dainamo 17:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please do not assume what sounds the same, is the same. The soviet rank of Colonel General replaced essentially the tsarist russian rank of General of the Infantry/Artillery etc., which already sounds like the German ranks of General of the Infantry/etc. and actually is the same (rank/level). (The Soviets had initally no ranks, but only functions like army commander, etc, but reintroduced the ranks later) The two lower ranks of Lt. General and Major General bear the same name as in tsarist times and are indeed the same (rank/level). It is really quite simple here: Both Soviets, Americans, Germans have 4 general officer ranks, and they do correspond to each other in terms of equivalence as much it makes sense for comparing ranks from different contries. The 4th and highest general rank was, however, only introduced 1860something in Germany, 1910something in the Austrian/Hungarian Monarchy and IMHO never in the Tsarist Army. The Marshal rank, though, always existed in these armies above the general ranks. For additional information see www.uniforminsignia.net, though i must warn you, the translations of ranks there are literal translations usually, not equivalent-translations. Thufir

On an additional point, I like your alligments, alhtough I have removed the empty cells at the top of the US and UK ranks. Although their most senior Field Marshal or General of the Army etc. would not have been given a special rank like in Germany or the Soviet Union, it is not true to say they would have ranked below the Generalissimo or Reichsfuhrer. It is just a case of one country having more degrees over the same level of seniority than others. I have nevertheless retained your allignment of these ranks to German/Soviet ones. I am unhappy about Gen Sui in the japanese column as I'm now not sure it was actually used during WWII, but any further comments woud be good. Dainamo 17:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Russian Lieutenants and Japanese ranks

I have readded the distinction between just two ranks in the Japanese forces (Taisa and Taii are respectively Daisa and Daii in the navy). The only thing that is bugging me is the equivalence of Russian subaltern officers. From other (non Wiki) sources, a western second lieutenant is usually a fairly brief phase after gaining a commission, after which it would be a rarity not to be promoted. I would imagine this is the same as a Russian junior lieutenant and that the regular/senior grades are therefore both equivalent to a (first)lieutentant in the west and that the division would only be of consequence in the Russian military (or defined by role if ever a joint campaign were to take place with a western army). Your thoughts would be appreciated. Dainamo 09:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Are you sure that these Japanese ranks were really distinct and it's not a matter of different romanizations? I don't have a slightest clue, just wondering.)

The Junior Lietenant rank is pretty rare; it is given to senior NCO's promoted to comissioned officers, as well as some unlucky officer cadets whose academic achievements are considered mediocre. Typical officer cadet graduates right with Lieutenant rank and the best graduate as Senior Lieutenants. At peace time, a Junior Lieutenant is typically promoted to Lieutenant within a year. The promotion to Senior Lieutenant happens within two years of service and to Captain within another three to five years. Considering this, I believe Junior Lieutenant and Lieutenant are both equivalent to Second Lieutenant. I'm not aware about the promotion rules of Western armies though; maybe the organizational structure should also be considered. 10:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dai seems to have been preferredin the Navy. Some sources show only Tai-i becoming Dai-i and others have Tai-sa becoming Dai-sa but Tai-I remaining. This suggests that either 'Dai was correct or evolved as an alternative to Tai in the Navy. Eitherway, there was certainly a distict naval version. Perhaps this is similar to the British lef-tenant becoming l'tenant in the navy (traditionally)? I don't know. Dainamo 20:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Japansese ranks equivalent to colonel and naval captain are universally written in kanji as 大佐, and similarily army captain and naval lieutenant are written as 大尉, where 大 has a meaning of big or great and is spelled DAI in cantonese dialect. See [1] [2] [3] DmitryKo 11:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Marshal ranks

There are basically 3 Marshal ranks existing, "Marshall", "Chief Marshal of Army Brach", "Marshal of Soviet Union". Nowadays in Russia there is only one Rank existing, but how do we position these three ranks? In the Footnote 5 it is mentioned that the Marshal ranks are basically equivalent to a General of the Army, however in the rank table 2 of the marshal ranks are shown equivalent to "General" and only one equivalent to "Marshal".

I suggest that the three marshal ranks of the soviet union are all considered to be sub-divisions of the marshal rank, such as currently e.g. the German Field Marshal and Reichsmarschall, or the Russian Generalissimo and Marshal of the Soviet Union. Reason for this is that i feel, a Marshal is not on the same level of responsibility as a "General armii" but belongs to the Marshals group.

Thufir

What the hell - who removed Marshals and Chief Marshals of a branch service? Looks like common sense rules the Wikipedia from now on, not the expertise... --DmitryKo 21:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Soviet ranks

I will delete some Soviet ranks which were not in use during WW2. And bring the table into accord with [4]--Nixer 07:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You gotta be banned. Cheers. --DmitryKo 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Other ranks

There were also other ranks in the USSR, for example, military medics and military lawers. Should we include them?--Nixer 06:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably overkill. These separate ranks for specialist officers existed in Germany as well and would make the table too large and unwieldy. A separate article is probably more appropriate. -- Necrothesp 22:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

General of the Armies

From [5]: It is also interesting to not that Army Regulation 600-15 dated January 1945, and not rescinded until August 1945, listed the three top "grades of rank" in the descending order of General of the Armies, General of the Army, and General.--Nixer 04:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because one country has more ranks than another does not mean those ranks are senior to those in the other country. They would merely considered to be variations on a theme. Some countries love to create ever more grandiose ranks for senior people (who frequently make up their own ranks, as with Stalin and Göring) - this does not mean those people outrank officers in other countries with less pretentious titles. -- Necrothesp 17:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

General of the Armies outranked General of the Army--Nixer 18:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but it didn't outrank Field Marshal in other countries. -- Necrothesp 18:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin

Yas, Stalin outranked all officers of US and Great Britain. Though, Francisco Franco also was a Generalissimo. Please do not change. Marshal of the RAF was not equal to Generalissimo.--Nixer 04:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about including "Generalissimo" here. By the same token one might then also include "Der Führer" in the Germany column, since Hitler held that title and was official Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (Befehlshaber der Wehrmacht) after he had decided not to fill that position with a professional military commander.Cosal 05:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was Der Oberste Fuhrer der Schutzstaffel. It was his rank. Stalin during the war with Germany was Marshal of the Soviet Union. Only in June 1945, after the victory over Germany, he was appointed a Generalissimo. Generalissimo is a military rank, just above Marshal of the Soviet Union and in use in many countries.--Nixer 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you cannot say that Stalin outranked every other officer in the world except Franco. This is ludicrous. King George VI, for example, Britain's head of state, held the rank of Field Marshal, because Britain does not indulge in grandiose titles for its heads of state. So, Stalin officially outranked the King of Great Britain, did he? Says who? Maybe a Russian historian would, but nobody else would make such a claim. You also appear to be saying that Soviet Marshals outranked (field) marshals from every other country. What utter rubbish! What basis do you have for these claims? Also, Hitler did not hold a rank. His title was like the President of the USA being C-in-C. -- Necrothesp 16:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Stalin outranked King George because in Britain there were no rank superior to five-star General. Stalin alo outranked Soviet Marshalls. Marshal of the Soviet Union outranked Field Marshal/General of the Army. SU already had rank of General of the Army. Later (after war) introduced rank Chief Mashal of... (Aviation, Artillery and so on) corresponds to Field Marshal - it is lower to Marshal of the Soviet Union. John Pershing also outranked King George.--Nixer 18:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What you fail to understand, Nixer, is that the senior officer of one country DOES NOT outrank the senior officer of another. No country acknowledges that a foreign officer is senior to any of its own officers. That would be ridiculous. Just because a country has more ranks does not make its top officers senior, otherwise some tinpot little country could create twenty ranks and claim that five of them were senior to any other officer in the world. Would that not be ridiculous? No more ridiculous than what you're claiming. Of course a Soviet Marshal did not outrank a British Field Marshal just because the SU also had a rank of General of the Army! -- Necrothesp 18:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ranks are compared not by number of ranks, but by number or people/military units under direct military command of a commander of such rank. I know countries in which Colonel is the highest military rank. This does not make this colonel superior to foreighn Generals.--Nixer 19:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The highest rank of one major country is equivalent to the highest rank of another major country. The British Chief of the Imperial General Staff was a Field Marshal. He commanded the whole British Army. How does that, by your own calculations, make him junior to a Soviet Marshal commanding a lesser formation? Be consistent. -- Necrothesp 19:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I agree with Necrothesp here. IMO it is extremely unlikely that Stalin outranked Hitler. Nixer, could you tell us what you approximate Stalin's rank in the modern NATO equivalent. Izehar 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin did not outrank Hitler because Hitler dead in May 1945, while Stalin became Generallissimo in June. There is no such rank in NATO present-day as I know.--Nixer 18:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but World War 2 ended in February. Stalin became Generallissimo after WWII, not before or during. Therefore, the reference to Stalin as Generallissimo should be removed, as during World War 2, Stalin was Маршал Советского Союза. He didn't become Generallissimo until after the war. Izehar 18:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing dates. Stalin became Generalissimo in June 1945, after this, SU declared war on Japan.--Nixer 18:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OK so when did the war end? Izehar 18:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitulation of Japan is normally regarded as the end of WWII. Zocky 19:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

2 September 1945.--Nixer 19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Translitteration

And please do not transliterate instaed of translation. I see no purpose in transliteration.--Nixer 04:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You may not, but many others do. These are, as I said, accepted English transliterations (most English-speaking military historians would recognise the transliterated words Polkovnik and Politruk, for instance) and this is English Wikipedia. It makes absolutely no sense to "translate" terms into things like "Counter-Admiral" and "Undercolonel", which mean nothing in English. Their equivalency can be seen from their position on the table - what's the point of "translating" them? Necrothesp 16:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is you not to confuse Generalissimo with Field Marshal of RAF. If somebody want to read, they can read in Cyrillic. There is no standard of transliteration established, and anyway, it is impossible to transliterate exactly. What the purpose of transliteration?--Nixer 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is confusing a Generalissimo with a Marshal of the RAF. They're different ranks (although theoretically equal, since both are the highest in their respective countries). The point is that transliteration is accepted in English-speaking countries, whether you like it or not. What is the point of transliteration? What a bizarre question. I know what a Polkovnik is. I know what a Politruk is. My native language is English. What is the point of you rendering them as "Colonel" (I can see that from the table) or "Political Leader" (pretty meaningless)? This is, as I said, English Wikipedia. We do know what these transliterations are. I can work out Cyrillic given time, but I'm not fluent in it. A transliteration enables me to see immediately what it's referring to. Many others will not know Cyrillic at all, but will know the transliteration (you seem not to be aware that words like Polkovnik are well-known in English works). -- Necrothesp 19:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we can left Polkovnik and Politruk here as a translation, ok?--Nixer 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the transliterations stay on the table. -- Necrothesp 19:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, what are you talking about? You can and should transliterate - not everyone can read Cyrillic. You can't translate - those ranks don't exist in the English language! Izehar 19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... I thought ranks exist in the army, not in the language. How do I tranlate Brigadier General or Commodore to Russian then? --DmitryKo 21:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

These words have strong Russian counterparts: Бригадный генерал and Командор.--Nixer 05:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Marshal of RAF is not equal to Generalissimo

Marshal of RAF is not equal to Generalissimo, please stop inserting this nonsence.--Nixer 19:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Marshal of the Royal Air Force is the highest officer in the Royal Air Force, he ranks as OF-10. That is the highest rank! Izehar 19:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Britain does not have the rank of Generalissimo, an MRAF is indeed equivalent. -- Necrothesp 19:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I know countries, in which Colonel is the highest military rank. Is it equal to Marshal of RAF? :-) --Nixer 19:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixer. we are talking about military ranks, not authority in general. Stalin was Head of State, of Government, of the Armed Forces etc. Of course he was not equal to the Marshal. However, their military ranks are the same. Izehar 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I also talk about military ranks. Generalissimo is the highest military rank, always superior to Marshal.--Nixer 19:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no British Generalissimo - that rank is held by the Marshal. They are the same rank! Izehar 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right. The commander of the British Army was a Field Marshal. That doesn't make him junior to a Generalissimo in a country that has them. -- Necrothesp 20:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

And in Vatican there is no even General ranks, and what? In some small states head of military is Colonel.--Nixer 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, the highest rank is OF-10. The Marshal of the RAF has that rank, therefore the Marshal of the RAF holds the highest rank in his country. The highest rank in the SU was Generalissimo, they are the same rank, only under a different name, the name means nothing. Haven't I explained it enough? There can be no higher rank that OF-10, if the MRAF is OF-10, then what was Stalin? Stop trolling and edit warring and beware the 3RR. Izehar 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In Luxemburg highest military rank is Colonel. Is it also OF-10? Dont measure Soviet ranks with NATO standard. In present-day NATO codes there is no code for Generalissimo.--Nixer 20:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, OF-10 is always the highest military rank. You can call him Colonel, Marshal, Major or even Private. The highest ranking officert ALWAYS ranks as OF-10 [6]! Izehar 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

So Colonel of the Luxemburgish Army is equal to British Field Marshal?--Nixer 20:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

They are of the same military rank - just in the same way that the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, who "ranks" as Head of State, is of the same "rank" as The Queen, who is also Head of State. The country or the name means nothing, it is th rank that counts. The Head of the Soviet Armed Forces ranked the same as the head of the armed forces of any other country. Izehar 20:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, according YOUR table, highest military rank in Belgium for example is OF-8 (Leutenant-General), in Canada highest military rank is OF-9 (General). OF-10 is not ALWAYS the highest military rank.--Nixer 20:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Which table? Izehar 20:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

From your link [7]--Nixer 20:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a higher rank than OF-10? Izehar 20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

MRAF is OF-10, what is Generalissimo, OF-11? It doesn't exist! Izehar 20:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does not exist in NATO codes. But in the times of WWII there was no NATO.--Nixer 20:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, so who used to head the Soviet Air Force, the tooth fairy? Izehar 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

We are comparing officers, NATO did not exist then, but the head of the Soviet Air Force is equal to the head of the Air Force of any other country. Izehar 20:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Soviet air force was headed by General of the Army and later (after the war) by Chief Marchal of the Aviation, which was of lower rank than Marshal of the Soviet Union. By the way, Goering was head of German Air Force, but he is superior to Field Marshal of RAF.--Nixer 20:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, in theory, in the British Armed Forces, the Royal Navy is higher, that is why it is often referred to as the "senior service". Logically, the Admiral of the Fleet, then would rank higher than the MRAF. In practice, though, that is not the case - they are both equal Service Chiefs and are at the top of the hierarchy together. When you are at the top, you can go no higher. Izehar 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The British Armed Forces were then and still are headed by the Admiral of the Fleet, the Field Marshal and the MRAF. The Soviet Armed Forces were headed by Stalin - they hold equal ranks. Izehar 20:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am not right. In 22.6 1941 — 11.4 1942 it was Zhigarev, General-Leutenant, from 17.3 1943 - Novikov, General-Colonel, and from 21.2 1944 he became Marshal of Air force. || And Luxenburgish Army is headed by Colonel. He is the same rank also?--Nixer 20:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There are different tables for the USSR since it changed the systen in 1943. Marshals of services were introduced.--Nixer 21:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Goering was head of German Air Force, but he is superior to Field Marshal of RAF". Nixer, you keep making these statements, but you do not explain the basis for your claims. Goering promoted himself to a rank he made up. Why does that make him senior to a Marshal of the RAF? Stalin did the same thing. Why does that make him senior to another head of state, all of whom are effectively commanders-in-chief of their countries' forces? Where is your justification for claiming that Soviet Marshals are senior to any other field marshals? Your claims seem to be entirely based on a "This is what I think so it must be true" platform. -- Necrothesp 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is your justification that Generalissimo was the same rank as General of the Army?

By the way, according [8] highest US Army rank General of the Army was of 17th grade by the relative scale, and according to this table: [9] Marshal of the Soviet Union was of 18th grade. You can call this research POV, but since there was no official correspondence in that time, this is the best we have. Also according to your version Himmler outranked Stalin during the war, which is nonsence.--Nixer 03:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

So as it no response I will revert to the proper version.--Nixer 08:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Where on earth on the table does it say that Himmler outranked Stalin? Now you're just making things up. It says that they were all these people were of more or less the same rank. Which they were. As to your obsession that Stalin was senior to everyone else, do you really think that Britain or the USA acknowledged Stalin and his Marshals as senior to any of their officers? Show us the proof in writing from the British and US governments, or stop making these ridiculous edits. -- Necrothesp 10:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your version of the table places Himmler a cell upper than Marshal of the Soviet Union, which was the title of Stalin during the war with Germany. You places Himmler just the same level as Generalissimo.--Nixer 11:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That is merely due to the limitations of the table. They're all shown as being OF-10. No implications as to relative seniority is really implied. -- Necrothesp 11:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is there was NO official correspondence before 1955. So this table in general can be based on not more then speculations. I give a link to a Russian military historian, which himself says this ranking subjective, though he describes general principles of estimations. If you have another source - this would be welcome.--Nixer 11:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No source = no proof. Case closed. -- Necrothesp 11:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Give YOUR sources please. You're rejectinge give ANY source that I ask you.--Nixer 11:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Added information

I have added information on Soviet ranks after 1943, but I think it should be better to have two different tables for Soviet Army before 1943 and after 1943.--Nixer 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? No ranks have changed, only insignia has. --DmitryKo 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In 1943 were introduced Sovit Marshals of specific arms and Chief Marshals of specific arms, also other ranks became specific to an arm branch.--Nixer 06:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You're reverting again

Since you're reverting again, please give any sources:

1. That General of the Army of the US was equal to Marshal of the Soviet Union.

2. That British Field Marshal corresponds to Generalissimo of the Soviet Union.

3. That Reichsfuhrer-SS outranked Marshal of the Soviet Union.

4. Why do you delete Oberster Fuhrer der Sturmstaffel and Soviet Marshals and Chief Marshals of specific arms?

--Nixer 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reverting again. I've reverted after your last unexplained edit. --_Lysy^{talk to me} 09:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is edit according [10]. Also added Soviet rMarshal ranks and Hitler's SS rank, added footnote about Soviet reform of 1943. All has been discussed. Also some table bugs corrected.--Nixer 09:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to give your sources too. And nobody is saying that Reichsfuhrer-SS outranked Marshal of the Soviet Union. -- Necrothesp 10:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I gave my sources - you dont. Why do you place Stalin as having the same rank as US General of the Army? Giving them the same rank is Original Research. --Nixer 11:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't make ludicrous claims about original research. No, you have given no sources. Give sources from the British and US governments that they acknowledged Stalin and his Marshals as being senior to any of their officers. Russian claims are irrelevant to this issue. -- Necrothesp 11:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is historical research, not Russian claims. If you want official US and British sources, than remove the whole article since it fully based on original research (the present look is based primarily on my source, before me it was a devil mixture here). There is no and can not be any official source for the whole this article. Delete it.--Nixer 11:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of this interesting dispute, I don't think further waste of your time makes sense and have reported Nixer for his notorious violation of 3RR. --_Lysy^{talk to me} 11:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This will not help to state the truth. I had nothing against your edit.--Nixer 11:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You've had nothing against it, yet you've reverted it without even mentioning why you did that. I'm sorry my friend but that's not the way to handle this. --_Lysy^{talk to me} 11:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I motivated my edits in this talk page. We already discussed the thing and I havent anythig against including Poland in this article. I have been reverted withiot motivation many times.--Nixer 11:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Major participants not shown"

I would suggest to remove the list of "major participants not shown", unless we are ready for unnecessary controversies. E.g. if France is considered "major participant", then Poland should be as well, as its military contribution throughout the war was much bigger than of France and so on ... I'm not sure if we really need this. Or maybe include these countries in the table as well ? --_Lysy^{talk to me} 10:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete the page

Since the only source for this article is in Russian and is not acceptable for English-Speakers I suggest delete the article to avoid original research.--Nixer 12:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that one person disagreeing with certain aspects of the article is not enough reason to delete the whole thing. -- Necrothesp 12:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The article in present state is based on the original research. You reject existing Russian sources. There is no other acceptable sources to base the article on.--Nixer 12:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to wait for the outcome of the VfD. Izehar 13:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What sources would you plan to build the article on?--Nixer 13:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ranks versus grades

Having noticed this from the deletion debate...

Nixer does have a point; the rank of generalissimo is generally placed above that of field-marshal.

But, on the other hand, generalissimo is neither a formal military grade, nor a regular rank. It is largely a hold-over from the idea of the order of precedence. Similarly, prior to some point (it would be interesting to determine when—probably around World War I), heads of state were not equal; a "King of Foo" was higher in precedence than a "Grand Duke of Bar", even if Bar was the larger and more powerful state. Thus, the various machinations like "King of Sicily" and "Empress of India".

Throughout its history, "generalissimo" has always been a special title rather than a pure military rank. In practice, it would be best equated to "Supreme Commander of the Allied Armies" or another similar position; it's not really productive to compare it to a normal rank such as a field-marshal. —Kirill Lokshin 13:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Though by the Soviet law Generalissimo is a military rank, just above Marshal. Becoming Generalissimo Stalin ceased to be Marshal.--Nixer 13:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Soviet law wasn't binding on anyone else, though ;-)

More to the point, all the special ranks ("Fuhrer", "Generalissimo", etc.) should probably be listed separately to avoid this entire debate. —Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuehrer is not a military rank. Though I agree Generalissimo should be placed separately. Though my opponents tend to indicate it to be equal to General of the Army and Field Marshal.--Nixer 13:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You will also notice that Nixer believes that Marshals of the Soviet Union outranked all other marshals! This is apparently simply because the SU had a rank of General of the Army which "must" equate to a US General of the Army, so the next rank up by his logic "must" outrank a US General of the Army. He seems to have a very black and white view of ranks - just because one country has more than another, their senior ranks must be higher. -- Necrothesp 13:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Such correspondence gives my source.--Nixer 13:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Explain. -- Necrothesp 13:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm not sure where you're seeing that. —Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Compare these tables [11] and [12]. The first column represents the relative military rank. For US General of the Army it gives 17, for Marshal of the Soviet Union - 18.--Nixer 13:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's debatable whether that's totally accurate; note this, which suggests that he's not using 18 for combat commanders, but only for service heads. I'll see if I can find any other sources; but the best idea would be to dig up something on, say, Zhukov and Montgomery, and whether one was senior to the other. —Kirill Lokshin 13:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea and I will agree in any case, but now we have only this source. Though there was no official ranking until 1955.--Nixer 13:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty certain that the British Army would not even consider acknowledging that Zhukov was senior to Montgomery! -- Necrothesp 13:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There was no official correspondence at all. Even British Corporal was not officially outranked by Zhukov.--Nixer 14:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

But there must have been a diplomatic correspondence—who salutes first when they both enter the room, and so forth. —Kirill Lokshin 14:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

May be. Though sources needed.--Nixer 14:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think those things were formalised before NATO. They're still not outside NATO nations. It's just common sense really. A marshal is a marshal. -- Necrothesp 14:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Then it means the article is pointless.--Nixer 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the perfect source: "The Armed Forces of World War II: Uniforms insignia and organisation", Andrew Mollo, Book Club Associates, London , 1981. This source asserts at page 53 that The King, with the rank of Field Marshal, was titular head of the Army but actual control of Britain's military strength was exercised by the Army Council, a body established in 1904. This source also asserts that Field Marshal, General of the Army, and Fleet Admiral are all at the top of traditional general rank. This source also has a table of ranks starting at page 301. The problem is that it doesn't mention the Field Marshal, nor a Generalissmo. The first officer of the British Army is listed as "1st Marshal", whereas the first officer of the Soviet Army is listed as "Marshal Sovetskogo Soyuza" (1940-1945). Izehar 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

May be first Marshal was superior to Field Marshal?--Nixer 14:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that there has never been a rank of First Marshal in Britain. Who would hold it? -- Necrothesp 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Generalissimo presumably isn't listed because only Stalin had that rank, so comparing it isn't very useful. "Marshal Sovetskogo Soyuza" is Marshal of the Soviet Union, of course—but what is "1st Marshal"? Is there a gradation in Field Marshal ranks in the British army (e.g. Field Marshal 1st class, Field Marshal 2nd class, etc.)? —Kirill Lokshin 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea - the King was Field Marshal according to this source. Are you saying that the 1st Marshal was superior to the King, Nixer? Izehar 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

May be. For example Russian Tsar Nikolay Romanov was a Colonel of Preobrazhensky regiment. After the February Revolution he was officially called "Polkovnik Romanov".--Nixer 14:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't. There's only a single rank: Field Marshal. Seniority is granted only by date of promotion. -- Necrothesp 14:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The source says: Field Marshal, General of the Army, and Fleet Admiral are all at the top of traditional general rank. I'll look into this in more detail later. I really have to go now. Izehar 14:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a copy of the table (which includes all countries involved in the war, including Greece and Hungary) and post it here. I won't do it now, so don't expect me to - I have an essay to write. Izehar 14:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany Ranks

I have two books: 1) History of the second world war. 2) Military leaders of the third Reich and military ranks of German military formations in the WWII. Rank Brigadengeneral is written to them is entered since 1944 (in the end), Unterleutnant since 1943 and in table of ranks SS the rank of Sturmfuhrer is written.--Tt1 18:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No other source I have ever seen lists these ranks. Sturmführer was used, but not by the SS during WWII. Brigadegeneral was introduced by West Germany in 1950. I have never seen Unterleutnant listed anywhere, and even Google can only find a handful of references, none of them referring to WWII.. -- Necrothesp 20:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Husnock and others did not recognize and challenged only my and Tt1 changes SS ranks. In all other ranks of disagreements here was not!-- Roitr 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• The "Kamonder" rank is also in question. That is similar to the German word for "Commander" but never have I seen it as an actual rank. And, I'm going to take a wild guess, but aren't you and User:Tt1...the same person???
  • P.S.- I actually have nothing against syntax and format changes to already established ranks or the way the tables are laid out. if that's all you're doing, then I will not at all go against it or revert. -Husnock 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My present changes

My present changes - 100% exact. These data are written in the Big Russian encyclopedia and on set of sites about Soviet and about Russian Armies equates to an OF-9 1.Адмирал флота (Admiral Flota) 1940-1944 is equates to an OF-9, 1944-1955 is equates to an OF-10. Since 1955 was established Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union-equates to an OF-10 and Адмирал флота (Admiral Flota) return to an OF-9. See Адмирал флота, Адмирал Флота Советского Союза, Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union - history of the rank, uniform

2.Chief Marshal of the Air Force of the Russian Federation (Главный Маршал авиации Российской Федерации) was established in the 1943 and was equates to an OF-10 h[ttp://marshals.narod.ru/rodaen.html Chief Marshals of branches: rank histories, uniform] Marshal of the Air Force was equates to an OF-9.

3.Генерал армии (General Armi) sinse 1935 to present is equates to an OF-9

You can see too Russian Army Anatomy site Russian Army Anatomy and soldat.ru

4.The generalissimo the highest rank which was appropriated in the:Austria, Britain, China, Czech, Italy, Japan, France, Germany, Mexico, North Korea, Roman Empire, Russia (USSR), Spain and this rank above than a ranks:Field Marshal, Marshal, Generalfeldmarshal and so forth ranks.

5.Reichsführer-SS is equivalent to Großadmiral and to Generalfeldmarschall in German Third Reich. Tt1 20:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm quite happy to agree with most of these points. However, Generalissimo does not outrank officers in other countries, as already discussed. Reichsführer, as a ministerial rank, could be said to outrank other officers in Germany. The Japanese rank of Jun I was a warrant officer, not an officer. I have seen no evidence of Jun Sho. Kommandor does not exist. A US Midshipman was a cadet, whereas an RN Midshipman was an officer. -- Necrothesp 21:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is your sence, nothing more. The sources contradict you.--Nixer 05:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You agree with me on the majority of of these points of this clause, but continue to erase all my amendments. Why? In all my books and encyclopedias-(at me it is a lot of them) in them it is precisely written the generalissimo the highest rank which was appropriated and this rank above than a ranks:Field Marshal, Marshal, Generalfeldmarshal and so forth ranks. generalissimo, Generalissimo biography As in all books about the second world war it is written that Reichsführer-SS is equivalent to Großadmiral and to Generalfeldmarschall in German Third Reich. Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel and axishistory. Kommandor in German Third Reich is actually a Kapitän zur See on admiral's duty. Jun I in WWII is a junior officer rank! Tt1 22:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I erase them because you continue to add them in conjunction with things that are definitely wrong. Generalissimo is the highest rank in countries that have it, but it does not outrank the highest rank in countries that do not. Reichsführer is merely equated to FM because it was the highest rank in the SS - I really don't think Himmler would have considered himself inferior to Göring!

This is also your sence. Goering considered himself superior to Himmler.--Nixer 05:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The rank, according to every source I've seen, is Kommodore, not Kommandor. Jun I is a Warrant Officer according to the sources I've seen. Where is your source for it being an officer rank? -- Necrothesp 22:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

1.In the most of the countries where there are ranks the Field Marshal, the Marshal, the General-Feldmarschall, Capitan-General and so on is or there was either theoretically or actually the highest a military rank a Gegneralissimo and this rank above than a ranks:Field Marshal, Marshal, Generalfeldmarshal, Capitan-General and so forth ranks. And that that a rank the Generalissimo in other countries does not exist-it not means that this rank not above ranks the Field Marshal, the Marshal, the General-Feldmarschall, Capitan-General. In some countries the highest rank the full General or the General-colonel or the General-lieutenant, but it does not mean that these ranks are equal to field marshal, the marshal, the Generalfeldmarshal or to the Generalissimo.

2.The rank equivalent to Reichsmarschall des Großdeutschen Reiches in Waffen SS is Der Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel. Adolf Hitler was the only man to hold the title. Reichsführer-SS is equivalent to Großadmiral and to Generalfeldmarschall in German Third Reich. Look the table SS ranks

3.Komandor, not Kommodore in German Third Reich is actually a Kapitän zur See on admiral's duty. Look below to the table Kriegsmarine ranks

4.Jun I in WWII is a junior officer rank! Tt1 16:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So Hitler, the German leader, was equal in rank to Göring, was he? Der Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel was a title, not a rank. You are referring us to tables which appear to be original research by a Russian scholar, not official rank tables. The rank was Kommodore, not Komandor, even according to German Wikipedia. Juni was a Warrant Officer according to this site and according to the WWII official US handbook to the Japanese forces. Not an original Japanese source, of course, but better than your unsubstantiated claims. Also, stop adding a USN Midshipman - he was a cadet and not equivalent to an RN Midshipman, who was a seagoing officer. -- Necrothesp 17:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

These tables not for school these tables are taken from the Big Russian Encyclopedia-is official of the State Encyclopedia which wrote set of scientists, professors, academicians-they have knowledge much more than you or I! These data are written also on a site Army Anatomy site Army Anatomy-this site is officially recognized by the Ministry of Defence of Russia Der Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel it's a title and a rank. For Der Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel you can see too Organisationsstruktur der SS and look for OSAF Oberster SA-Führer in documentarchiv.de and even according to Comparative military ranks of World War II.de

On your logic Reichsmarschall des Großdeutschen Reiches is more a title, than a rank. Was the only man to hold the title. Reichsführer-SS is equivalent to Großadmiral and to Generalfeldmarschall in German Third Reich and the Generalissimo the highest rank-it's written in all sources!

No, Göring wore a uniform as Reichsmarschall. Would you like to show us the uniform and insignia Hitler wore as Oberster etc. -- Necrothesp 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin also did not were the Generalissimo uniform, but he was a Generalissimo.--Nixer 05:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The rank was Komandor, not Kommodore, even according to Die Wehrmacht Kriegsmarine. I shall not argue any more because of one letter. If you wish to write Kommodore-well and write. Only in my opinion it there will be not exact data!

Jun I in WWII is a junior officer rank- according to the WWII official USSR handbook! And still if you wish to correct one point - it is not necessary to erase all clause! Tt1 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you quote from a Russian source. Show us a German source. -- Necrothesp 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Not just one point, but a number, which you change based on a single source with which others do not agree. That is why you are continually reverted. Note that I am not the only person reverting you! -- Necrothesp 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote and represented not a single source. I wrote and representedand much sources and as official source and I completely trust them - - 100% exact. I quote not only from a Russian source, I wrote too in the top German source - Organisationsstruktur der SS and look for OSAF Oberster SA-Führer in documentarchiv.de and even according to Comparative military ranks of World War II.de Tt1 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Husnock-Stop revert my edits. You write not correct and not exact data! If you do not know Russian and German language-it your problem. The Soviet military ranks of the period of the second world war and their equivalence are written on many sites and in many books, especially in Russian. To not trust them at me there is no reason! German ranks SS and their equivalence are written on many sites and in many books including in German. According to them-Der Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel it's the highest title and a rank in SS. This rank had no special uniform, because had it only Hitler. To challenge them silly! Tt1 14:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You are aware that the SA and the SS were completely different organisations, are you not? The title of Oberster SA-Führer did indeed exist. That's no proof it also existed in the SS. Odd that you say German Wikipedia is a "top German source" when it you claim it supports your theories (although actually it doesn't) and ignore it when it does not (c.f. Kommodore/Komandor). The German version of Comparative Military Ranks appears to have largely been written by someone who has also edited incorrectly here - not much of a recommendation. -- Necrothesp 15:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that the SA and the SS were completely different organisations, I had in mine of what Hitler had posts, titles and a ranks: Reich Chancellor of Germany, the Supreme Commander German Army ( Führer), Der Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel and Der Oberster SA-Führer. I wrote not only site German Wikipedia, I as wrote many other sites including not German language and German language. I do not think who has also edited German Wikipedia-that it incorrectly. I should trust them because just German language-native language. At me impression that all of you have declared to me war and erase all mine not looking on correct they or not. I do not understand your logic to erase all - exact data together with disputable data Tt1 15:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of working hard to only get rid of the incorrect data only for you to revert the whole thing? It would be a waste of our time. Once you accept that one source (and you do only appear to have one source, since German Wikipedia does not support your theories, despite your claims) does not make something correct, we can move on. -- Necrothesp 16:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I repeat 100-th time that wrote in top not one source and much and not only in Russian. You trust to US sources, but do not trust the Russian sources - why? The Soviet Army was at war much more than American Army and I trust the Russian military historians more! Tt1 17:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You have mentioned one textbook that contradicts hundreds of other sources, including original German documents from the Second World War. The ranks you are adding are unsourced, unverified, and highly disputed. And, as Necrothesp stated above, your entire edits are being reverted since incorrect info mixed in with partially correct data would take a large amount of time to "weed out", only to have you revert the entire thing anything. P.S.- Stop using anon IP sockpuppets to bypass the 3 revert rule. Sign in as the user that you are, state your case, and work with the system instead of edit warring and saying things like we dont like Russian sources becuase you were at war longer than the U.S. And, p.p.s. Necrothesp is British. -Husnock 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Husnock. I am indeed British (and we were at war for considerably longer than the Russians were, apart from their brief foray into Poland in 1939 - by Tt1's logic, that presumably means our historians are more trustworthy!). And I don't trust any sources unless they're verified. The fact the source is Russian is irrelevant to me. The fact it makes different claims from other sources is the important thing. -- Necrothesp 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You can see many sites in English and in German and in Russian SS-Rank Table showing equivalents in the German, American and British Armies, Der oberste Führer. der Schutzstaffel,SS, Army Anatomy -Tt1 17:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking about that that the USSR was at war more I had in view of scales and numerous victims and as the size of the contribution to a general victory! If you do not know German language as you can speak about original German documents from the Second World War.You not show to me not one original and official site not in German and not in English. Please show them to me them! If you can scan them to me and send on rr23@hotbox.ru. I think that it silly from for dispute on one rank to erase all clause. To correct one thing a lot of time is not necessary! -Tt1 18:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Using sockpuppets to circumsvent the 3 Revert Rule is expressly forbidden. You are heading for a longer block if you keep this up. -Husnock 18:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• In any event, you have now violated the Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule for you appear to have made 5 reverts in the past 24 hours. I imagine a block will shortly be coming. -Husnock 18:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So, to support your case you're quoting the Russian site that we've already said we don't agree with and two sites featuring identical tables which are very wrong (there are no Battalion Sergeant Majors in the British Army for instance, Staff Sergeants have been omitted, and American Sergeants 1st Class didn't exist in WWII). Interestingly, these two also disagree with you that Reichsführer was equivalent to Field Marshal - you can't be selective about what you agree with! -- Necrothesp 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have also noticed that User:Tt1 (and his many incarnations) has continously added General of the Air Force to the rank tables. This rank did not exist in World War II. It was created in 1949. For that matter, the United States Air Force did not exist until 1947. -Husnock 01:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection

I feel that I can justify this since I have not been active in the actual editing of this article, only reverting the edit war which has been going on. User:Tt1, along with many anon IP sock puppets, has been adding disputed and non-existent ranks to these tables and (through sockpuppets) has violated the 3 revert rule on at least 2 occasions. The user has been approached by two other Wikipedians and has not provided any valid sources for these edits but has simply continued to revert and reinsert disputed material.

I will give this one more chance to resolve itself with Tt1 providing valid material for his many changes to this article. If the reverts continue to disputed versions of the article, I think the page should be protected. -Husnock 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• We now are protected from anon users, but User:Roitr is now reverted to previous versions. BY looking at the talk page of Roitr, this user appearas to be a sockpuppet of User:Tt1 who is, in turn the user who was (admitted above) logging on under anon IP address. Will this never end? -Husnock 19:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A proposal

Since some people seem intent on continuing this dispute...

Why not simply have a convention where any rank that was held by only a single person is removed from the main table and listed separately, along with a note to the effect that while these ranks were at the top of their respective hierarchies, no formal correspondence among them exists, and any relative comparison is speculative. This would get rid of Stalin, Himmler, Goering, etc. and allow us to avoid fighting over semantics at the top of the table. —Kirill Lokshin 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Himmler's rank was actually held by more than one person...five people actually. See: Reichsfuhrer for further details. -Husnock 01:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose Hanke might count. The others, though, held the title of Reichsfuhrer; it only became a formal rank in 1934. —Kirill Lokshin 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And this article is only about ranks of WWII, so it's actually not a bad proposal - only Himmler and Hanke (barely) held the rank 1939-1945. -- Necrothesp 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Officially Himmler's rank corresponded to Fieldmarshal, I see no need to separate the Reichsfuehrer (besides yes, it was held by two different people). Otherwise we should separate the Маршал войск связи, because there was only one person (Peresypkin I.T.) who held this rank. I suggest to separate only those that do not have modern NATO equivalent not to insult those who live in NATO countries.--Nixer 05:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixer asked me for an independent opinion on this dispute and I have read the above discussion with interest. I lack the expertise to compare ranks across different countries, but would like to make a few points:

I think some confusion is caused by individuals such as Stalin, Hitler, British monarchs (et c.) having both political and military positions. We also need to distinguish between people who held two separate positions/ranks (e.g. King and Field Marshal) and; individuals who had one rank/position which was both military and political. In some cases, military ranks are really symbolic/honorifics with no specific duties/operational role (check List of British Field Marshals and you will see that the "rank" has been used to honour some decidedly non-military figures). But it's safe to say that in none of the above cases did the military outrank the heads of government, let alone heads of state. The British monarch outranks the Prime Minister, but this has nothing to do with the monarch being given the official rank of Field Marshal or whatever. The same seems to apply to Soviet leaders being Marshals of the Soviet Union. Soviet supreme leaders and British monarchs outrank/ed other politicians and military leaders because the highest state/political positions always outrank the military positions. (While Stalin did outrank any Field Marshal, he and the British monarch were equals as head of state, as were Hitler, Hirohito, Roosevelt, etc. And they all, in a ceremonial sense, outranked Churchill, who as Prime Minister was "mere" head of government. But I digress.) So I think political titles need to be ignored, unless, as in the case of Generalissimo and Reichsführer-SS, they are inseparable from military ranks/roles. (Note that I am not referring saying that Generalissimo and Reichsführer-SS are equal, merely that they are both political and military positions/ranks.)

On a lesser note, the name "British Empire" was officially replaced by "British Commonwealth" in 1926 (and that by "Commonwealth of Nations" in 1949). So that column would be more accurately headed British Commonwealth. And the ranks should not refer specifically to British services (e.g. the RAF), unless comparable ranks did not exist in other Commonwealth militaries/service branches.

Still thinking. Grant65 | Talk 14:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the Commonwealth was created in 1926, that only referred to the Dominions. The colonies and India continued to be referred to as the "British Empire", which was still used by extension to refer to the Dominions too. "British Empire and Commonwealth" may be an acceptable alternative. Re your last point, if you mean Marshal of the Royal Air Force, this was the only Field Marshal equivalent rank to exist in the Imperial air forces during the war. In effect, members of Imperial air forces were also members of the RAF, Dominion squadrons serving in the UK effectively became part of the RAF and received RAF numbers, and personnel were entirely interchangeable. Remember that everyone in the Commonwealth/Empire was actually a British subject at this time. -- Necrothesp 15:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, I believe "British Commonwealth" in 1926-49 included the non-Dominion members of the Empire, but not as equal members to the UK and Dominions. You're incorrect about the status of Dominion air force squadrons and personnel. Yes, personnel were entirely interchangeable between RAF/Dominion sqns in northern Europe and the Mediterranean, which was entirely sensible, but was technically a breach of the agreement which set up the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. Similarly, Dominion sqns were assigned numbers which did not clash with RAF sqn no's. Nevertheless the sqns and Dominion personnel in RAF sqns had a different status to (e.g.) the Eagle Squadrons, Polish squadrons and their personnel. The Dominion sqns and personnel remained members of their respective air forces, as did RAF personnel in Dominion sqns and (e.g.) the RAF squadrons which served with RAAF formations in Australia in 1943-45. Grant65 | Talk 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now changed the name of the column to "British Commonwealth"; while it may not have been widely used in 1939-45, it is technically correct for the period. Also there was and is a separate Marshal of the RAAF (and probably the RCAF, but I haven't checked); during the war it was King George VI. Grant65 | Talk 01:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the first member of the Royal Family to be appointed to the rank of Field Marshal in Australia appears to have been the Duke of Edinburgh, I find it highly unlikely that the equivalent rank of Marshal of the RAAF existed during the war. Do you have any evidence for its existence at that time? -- Necrothesp 20:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a "Glossary of Ranks" (in WW2) from the Australian Government.[13] Actually if you have a good look there you will see some minor differences with the other Commonwealth forces — maybe we should have separate columns for every country. Just kidding.Grant65 | Talk 02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely trust a table that seems to imply that a CSM outranked a WOI! But seriously, it does seem to conflict with other sources which suggest that the Duke of Edinburgh is the first and only member of the Royal Family to hold any "5-star" rank in the Australian Forces. -- Necrothesp 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to say that a CSM wasn't more senior than a WO1 in 1939-45, since I'm far from being an expert on the history of Australian Army ranks. It really doesn't have anything to do with George VI. And I've never seen a reference to Phil da Greek being the first ever Marshal of the RAAF. Grant65 | Talk 17:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us also not forget that 85% of this dispute was caused by a user who was adding totally non-existent ranks to the page and then started a huge edit war when they were disputed. The syntax issues and comparisons could have been worked out even with the tables showing them. But, the article was protected becuase of the edit warring and adding of nonsense ranks to the article. If there is no further danger of that happening, the article can be unprotected and the valid points above can be addressed. -Husnock 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of everything that has happened with his article, but I don't there's any need to throw insults around. It's considered good practice among Wikipedians to assume good faith, even if you believe otherwise. Grant65 | Talk 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Insults? Where? I was simply stating the reason why the article was protected in the first place and stating as well that, if that threat has passed, the article should be unprotected. -Husnock 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "85% of this dispute was caused by a user who was adding totally non-existent ranks"? There is no need for that kind of personal attack. Grant65 | Talk 19:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but thats not a personal attack, its a statement of fact. The primary reason that the article was protected was because a user was adding non-existant ranks. The other part dealt with the comparison issue and the way the tables were laid out. If I had to break it up, 85% was the non-existant rank issue and %15 was due to the rank comparisons. A personal attack would be "so-and-so is a blanka-de-blank blank" and I certianly didn't say; in fact, I was overly patient with the other user both here and on the article involoving SS ranks. I should also add that the user in question, once blocked for edit warring, created sock puppets to circumvent the block and then continued with the same edit war. Only after several days has this user calmed down. I return to my original statement which is: if there is no further danger of the edit war resuming, then the article should be unprotected. -Husnock 20:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It may or may not be a statement of fact, but it is also a personal attack, and it's unproductive. We can all speculate on the use of sockpuppets and so on, but it's difficult, if not impossible, to prove. The history shows me an edit war and differences of opinion. My point is that making asccusations is unproductive, especially when they are unverifiable accusations. Grant65 | Talk 20:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets all get back to the original question: Should the article be unprotected and the changes above be discussed and/or made. If there is no danger of another edit war, then let us proceed. The SS rank article has been unprotected for a few days now with no nasty happenings. Maybe it will be the same over here. -Husnock 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

First to do

1. We should bring back the supreme SS rank, Oberster Fuehrer der Schutzstaffel ([14], [15], [16])

Please read the material above about this "supreme SS rank" and visit the SS ranks article. There is no German evidence that it ever existed, there is no SS correspondence available that Hitler ever called himself by this title, there is no established World War II text that mentions it nor is it mentioned in Duetsche Uniformen which was a 1938 manual, published by the Nazis themselves, which listed ranks of paramilitary groups. The article on this rank was also VfDed. 3 Russian websites are not enough to verify the existence of such a rank. Provide a scan of a document, the name of a recognized World War II text, etc. This has been beat to death enough.

I added the sources below. --Nixer 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Place Reichsfuehrer-SS to the same cell with Generalfeldmarschall because they were officially correspondent in Germany.

Himmler was more equal to Goring as he commanded Field Marshals and was seen as senior to them by default. Although, it is debatable since the Waffen-SS had no Field Marshals and Himmlers rank would kind of make him the single Field Marshal of the Waffen-SS.

There was official correspondence between Reichsfuehrer and Generalfeldmarschall, see the Reichsfuehrer article for example.--Nixer 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

3. We should add Soviet Mershals ranks.

I have no issue with the Soviet ranks and never have.

What?--Nixer 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

4. We should separate the Generalissimo rank from others not to insult them who live in NATO countries (and because there was no official correspondence)

Again, no issue with this. I know little about this rank.

I only insist not to show Generalissimo equal to Fieldmarshal and General of the Army. We can place them in or out of the table.--Nixer 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

5. I will add information on Chinese ranks.

Good idea

--Nixer 16:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I added my comments in above. -Husnock 17:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of Generalissimo, Reichsführer and Reichsmarschall from the table entirely to prevent further edit wars. Re Chinese ranks, I don't think they should be added. The idea is to keep the table as small as possible. If we add Chinese ranks, then why not French ranks or Italian ranks or Norwegian ranks or Polish ranks and so on ad infinitem? And before we know it the table is far too unwieldy. -- Necrothesp 17:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Reichsfuehrer has the official correspondence with Generalfeldmarschall, so there should not be edit war. If we separate the Generalissimo, there also should not be edit war. Chinese ranks not worser then Japanese.--Nixer 18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a world war. The Chinese only fought one enemy. Every other country on the list fought more than one. Why is China more significant than Italy? I'm concerned for the size of the table. -- Necrothesp 18:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

About a half people participated in the war were from China.--Nixer 18:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And effectively they fought an entirely separate war with Japan which had been going on since long before World War II started. -- Necrothesp 19:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oberster SS-Fuehrer

Here are the German sources: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] --Nixer 17:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Only one of those I would agree with (the others appear to private websites and not verifiable) and it lists Hitler as "Oberster SA und SS-Führer" which translates as "Supreme Leader of the SA and SS", which he was. However, there was no rank in the SS system higher than Reichsfuhrer. This has been beat to death over and over and over again at the SS ranks article. Hitler was, by default, above Himmler since Hitler was SS Member #1 and as Fuhrer of the Nazi Party. However, Hitler never called himself by an SS title, never held an SS rank, and there are no documents from the Second World War stating that Hitler held a rank in the SS. The only thing that would be acceptable would be a German document (not a website) listing Hitler by this "supreme SS rank". I can provide you with dozens of sources which say that there was no rank higher than Reichsfuhrer-SS. I can't say it any plainer than that. Also, please be aware that this has been added to the SS rank article already in the most NPOV way I could think of. That should be enough. -Husnock 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this will make it a bit easier to understand. The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. He tells the Generals (and Admirals) what to do and is senior to them. But, there is no rank in the U.S. military of "Commander in Chief". The President doesn't wear a military uniform or any type of insignia for his position. Its the same thing here. Whatever Hitler might have called himself or whatever people have called him since then, he did not actually hold an SS rank, there was no SS insignia for his position, and he never wore an SS uniform. All of this is covered quite nicely at the SS ranks article. Let us move furhter discussion on this rank to there. -Husnock 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin also never wore Generalissimo uniform. John Pershing never wore General of the Armies uniform. But he was. Hitler wore military uniform. He was a member of SS. Each SS member had a rank. Which was the Hitler's rank in your version? Was it inferior to Himmler's one?--Nixer 18:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin and Pershing never wore uniforms? I believe Stalin had his own insignia and Pershing could have but declined to (see General of the Armies). In any event I have made the case for "my version" and I clearly indicated (several times) that Hitler was senior to Himmler in title. I suggest we move on to other things and this conversation be continued on the talk pag eof the SS ranks article if you truely wish to pursue it further. -Husnock 18:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin really never wore the Generalissimo uniform. Such uniform even did not exist (though there were projects and specimens). He wore uniform of Marshal of the Soviet Union. I asked you not about title, but military rank of Hitler, hence he wore uniforms.--Nixer 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler wore a uniform, but he did not wear an SS uniform, as you seem to be implying. His uniform bore no rank insignia whatsoever. He was a member of the SS because he was supreme leader of Germany and was therefore senior member of every Nazi organisation. Himmler was Reichsführer - how can you hold a rank senior to "State Leader"? It describes exactly what Himmler was - he had no superiors within the SS organisation. You see things too much in black and white - there is grey as well! -- Necrothesp 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So what military rank had Hitler? Was he Hefreiter (as he was during WWI)?--Nixer 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

He had no military rank. Do you not understand this? He was Führer - supreme head of everything in Germany. He needed no other rank. -- Necrothesp 19:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuerer is a political title. He cuoldnt have no rank - at least he was Hefreiter.--Nixer 19:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

He was a Gefreiter in the First World War. NCOs do not keep their rank after they leave the service, especially if they were only war substantive. Hitler had no rank apart from Führer. Why did he have to have another rank? I don't understand your reasoning. The President of the United States has no military rank. The President of France has no military rank. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has no military rank. And so on, ad infinitem. Why did Hitler have to have a rank? -- Necrothesp 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want to say Churchill had no military rank? :-) Do you want to say Hitler was private?--Nixer 18:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Churchill held the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel when he was in the Army. However, he never used his rank after the First World War. So, no, he effectively held no military rank (although he sometimes wore the uniform of a Colonel or RAF Air Commodore, simply because he liked uniforms). Your analogies are pointless and inaccurate. Not everybody holds a military rank. -- Necrothesp 11:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing military rank with administrative position. Military rank remains even if the person resigns. This is more the matter of qualification and knowledge of a person. Yes every male person (except those who cant be a military subject due to illness) has a military rank. For example, I am a private of reserve. You can be a president, but still private, and you can be a Marshal but no more than pensioneer. Most military positions, however could be occupied only by a person of relevant rank. Even if I like uniforms I cant were General's uniform - this is prohibited by law.--Nixer 11:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Which shows you are assuming that every country functions like yours. I have no military rank, although I have served in the military. Why? Because I no longer serve in the military. In Britain, it is acceptable to continue to use a rank after resignation/retirement only if one was a commissioned officer holding the rank of at least Major or equivalent, and even then many do not (as Churchill did not). But even then, one holds the rank only for honorary purposes and not for real. The only people who hold their ranks until death are Field Marshals and equivalent. Don't extrapolate every country's practices from your own (particularly considering not all countries have conscription, so your statement "every male person (except those who cant be a military subject due to illness) has a military rank" is fundamentally flawed). The highest military rank Hitler ever held was Gefreiter - whether the German Army still considered him a Gefreiter or not is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp 12:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You still confusing staying in reserve and holding a military rank. In Russia for example privates stay in reserve until 27, officers - until 30 something, senior officers and generals - until upto 60. But dicontinuing staying in reserve does not discontinue holding a military rank. A WWII veteran does not stay in reserve, but still holds a military rank.--Nixer 13:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realised Hitler was a Russian! I'm not confusing anything. The fact remains that the highest military rank he held was Gefreiter. The fact also remains that just because Russia does something does not necessarily mean the rest of the world does (British WWII veterans, for instance, do not hold a military rank - they only held it when they were in the service). What are you arguing? -- Necrothesp 13:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think what Nixer is getting at is that every member of the SS had to have a rank in the SS, and that Hitler as Oberster SS-Führer was outranked by.....himself, as overall German Führer, just as any British monarch who was a Field Marshal was ultimately outranked by himself as monarch. Grant65 | Talk 05:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I know what he's trying to get at, but he can't make assumptions based on extrapolation. That's not fact; it's merely conjecture. And we deal in facts. -- Necrothesp 11:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I give you sources, you dont give ANY source, but demonstrate your crass ignorance.--Nixer 11:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And Grant65 says that personal attacks have been made on Nixer! So what was that? Apparently anyone who disagrees with him and his questionable sources is crass and ignorant. -- Necrothesp 12:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixer says we give no sources, but this discussion has been full of them. The most compelling is the Encyclopedia of the Third Reich which gives no mention of a "supreme SS rank" and also Deutsche Uniformen, a publication made by the Nazis themselves in 1938 that also makes no mention at all about a rank above Reichsfuhrer-SS. And, yes, I agree with Necrothesp, when Nixer is cornered with the facts, he resorts to name calling (i.e. "crass ignorance") and heavy sarcasim (i.e. "You want to say Hitler was private"). I am still willing to work with Nixer (and othes) to make this article better but an attitude shift needs to happen here or nothing will get done. -Husnock 14:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

So Hitler was a Gefreiter. He also held an SS title of Oberster SS-fuehrer. Also he had a party rank of Reichsleiter. He wore SA uniform and later only Party uniform. He never been seen in SS uniform. Right? So we can make a footnote that Oberster SS-fuehrer is more title than rank or delete this entity. Any other opinions?--Nixer 15:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Hitler was not a Reichsleiter. That was a senior Nazi party rank and Hitler, as Fuhrer, was senior to all Reichsleiter. I think we're on the right track here. Maybe an entry on the actual Adolf Hitler page regarding his many titles and postions would be in order but this page should avoid using the seniort head of state titles and stick to military ranks of World War II. -Husnock 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

These should be avoided not because they are "senior" but because they are Party paramilitary ranks, not military ranks. Though I beleve there at least title Oberster SS-Fuehrer existed, I agree, we need additional research on all Hitler's titles.--Nixer 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Poland and HTML corrections

Hi there. I recently added Poland to the list and corrected a number of HTML problems to proper UTF encoding. Finally, I also converted all the footnotes to Wikipedia:Footnotes style, which is suggested way of placing footnotes in wikipedia. However, all of my changes were reverted some 10 seconds afterwards by Nixer. Afterwards he informed me that he's been working on the article for quite some time at Comparative military ranks of World War II/temp and simply decided to overwrite all my changes with his version. While I agree that his version of the list might be better, it is still not a reason to wholesale revert my additions and corrections. Pretty, pretty please, being bold is not an explanation for lack of respect for the hard work of others. If Nixer wants to replace the current version with his work, please, just add my corrections too. Otherwise it would turn out that some 4 hours I spent on preparing and correcting the table were lost. Halibutt 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert the proper version. It had been discussed for more than month. and was located in Comparative military ranks of World War II/temp since the page was protected from editing. Now I copied the result of discussion in the article page. There is too many to correct in your improper version - table form, ranking, need add a number of strings, footnotes and many other. If you want to add Poland, feel free but dont revert. I will try to help you add your corrections as possible.--Nixer 19:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

After Tt1's additions it seems correct now. Do you have anything new to add to the table? If so - please add it. However, do not delete the work of others. I know the article's been protected, but it got unprotected 3 days ago. During that time people spent quite an effort to expand the article and you should not value your work more than the work of others, it would simply be unkind. Note that what you write ( There is too many to correct in your improper version - table form, ranking, need add a number of strings, footnotes and many other) could be said the other way around as well. That is why I believe that, should you have any corrections to the version prepared between the protection and your deletion of new content, perhaps you could try to update the current version and not the pre-protection one? That way little would be lost. Halibutt 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Admiral of the Fleet, Chief Marshal and Marshal of a service branch

The current version is not correct at all in regard to the above-mentioned ranks - see ru:Маршал рода войск and ru:Главный маршал рода войск, ru:Адмирал флота and also an older edit of this page (current English Wikipedia articles on Russian/Soviet ranks have been trashed by the bots, so they are not reliable anymore). --DmitryKo 18:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I fully agree I dont know why Halibutt reverts to a version as old as month and additionally perverted by Tt1.--Nixer 19:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about Russian ranks at all, at least as long as they are not written in HTML mumbo-jumbo. I simply revert to the version with Poland (and now Greece) added, with proper footnotes and with Russian names corrected. If anyone wants to correct the Russian ranks - feel free to do so. But please, without deleting the work of others. Halibu tt 20:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So you don't care about Russian ranks but we're supposed to care about Greek and Polish ones instead... that's really nice. --DmitryKo 02:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixer You have erroneous ranks of the USSR. See Political staff (USSR) since 1942, Political staff (USSR) until 1942 fnd USSR ranks until 1945. Marshal Sovetskogo Soyuza equivalent to General of the Army (USA) and to British Field Marshal see Army Ranks Equivalents and in present time them equivalents to Marshal Rossiyskoy Federatsii. Thanks for attention and understanding.--Tt1 20:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt I am not delete Poland and Greece rank.--Tt1 20:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that both you and Latinus try to combine both versions rather than delet one and use the other, all should be all right. Just let me know when you're finished, I'm thinking of adding Italy to the list. Halibutt 00:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to cut down the multiple rows at the top of the table. Could someone perhaps write a suitable note for the first row explaining that the ranks were honorary and/or awarded in unusual circumstances and that comparing them is not very meaningful? —Kirill Lokshin 18:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the lines back and reverted your mistake with the rank of Marshal of Poland (it was not OF-10 back then as there can be only 1 marshal of Poland at a time, contrary to Field Marshals in other armies). I will add the disclaimer though. What wording do you propose? Halibutt 18:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough about the Marshal of Poland thing. I don't believe having the Marshal of the Soviet Union above OF-10 is correct, though, regardless of what Nixer claims.

As for a disclaimer, something along the lines of "Due to the fact that these ranks were honorary, or were awarded in limited or unusual circumstances, establishing an exact correlation among them is impossible"; this would apply, in my opinion, to General of the Armies/Admiral of the Fleet, Generalissimo, Reichsmarshall (and Marshal of Poland, if I understood you correctly?). —Kirill Lokshin 18:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Komandor (Disputed)

I have removed twice the title "Kamandor" from the rank table. This is the German word for Commander and was never an actual rank. Many German officers were called this title, but simply becuase they commanded a unit. A somewhat close equivalent would be calling the Captain of a U.S. vessel "Skipper". There is no rank of Skipper but it is a very common title. This title of Komandor was also discussed numerous times before the article was protected and most everyone agreed that there was no German source which stated this was an actual rank. -Husnock 19:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Husnock! Different sources write this rank (Kommodore, Komandor) on a miscellaneous. I'm thinking about adding Italy WWII ranks to the list it's good-Tt1 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what sources? Any German documents which speak of this rank "Komandor"? As far as I know, it is the German word for "Commander" and is a title; it is not an actual rank of the Kriegsmarine. This is supported by several World War II texts including Deutsche Uniformen. This is a disputed rank and needs a valid source. Reinserting it in the article over and over again is what caused the last major edit war to happen. -Husnock 21:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Senior ranks

And still we have people adding senior officers above OF-10 equivalent. Please stop doing this. Can we please make a decision that unique ranks should not be added. There is NO rank above Field Marshal etc in a country in which Field Marshal is the highest rank. Claiming that Stalin/Göring/Pershing/whoever outranked Field Marshals in countries that did not have these unique or virtually unique ranks is ridiculous. -- Necrothesp 22:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Halibutt has put Primo Maresciallo dell'Impero at an equal rank to that of the Soviet Generalissimo. I wonder what Nixer and Tt1 will have to say about that ;-) Latinus 23:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is a reason behind having three separate rows: one for standard OF-10 (more or less translatable and similar to each other across the table), one for officers senior to "ordinary" OF-10 (as in the case of Marszałek Polski, who was not a mere Field Marshal until the commie reform of 1954, and even then he was closer to Generalissimus, as there could be only one such guy and he had actual command over the army, sort of a minister of defence combined with chief of staff and front commander). Finally, all the titular ranks like the Soviet Generalissimo (Soso) or the Italian Primo Maresciallo dell'Impero (Mussolini), who had almost super-natural powers and simply did not fit any rules or schemes. Halibutt 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Haven't we already had this debate enough above? The highest British rank (Field Marshal etc) was not junior to the highest rank in other countries, which is what this table implies. Not having ranks with grandiose names does not make the holders of the less grandiose ranks any less senior. -- Necrothesp 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not that they would be subordinate to each other if placed in the same sector of the front. It's that simply theyr responsibilities would be incomparable. If we placed British Field Marshal in line with the Soviet Generalissimus, an uninformed user of the table might have thought that for instance Ironside was:

• the only oficer of that rank at his time
• that he had the powers of chief of staff, commander in chief and god-incarnated combined
• that Ironside could fire any general from the service

And so on. While names or OF-ranks might be tempting, we should remember of the differences. Halibutt 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

But the implication is still that the rank is senior. Remember, this article's title is Comparative military ranks of World War II. And why should Pershing be regarded as senior to a British Field Marshal just because he was senior to a US General of the Army? It makes no sense. I still say these ranks should be deleted to avoid meaningless comparisons. -- Necrothesp 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And why not simply explain them in the notes below the article? Think positively :) Halibutt 07:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, put them all in the OF-10 section and don't try to imply that they're senior to ranks in other countries. They are, after all, all equivalent to OF-10 ranks in countries which only have one OF-10 equivalent. Pershing did not outrank Ironside, as the table currently says he did. -- Necrothesp 16:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Many сountries have one person in at one time in the title. Marshal of Poland in WWII too is equivalent to other Marshals. Primo Maresciallo dell'Impero is equivalent to Chinese WWII rank Chief Marshal of China and not to Generalissimo of China and not to Generalissimo of other countries. Also I correct Italy ranks Italian Army official Web Site-WWII ranks, Ranks of NATO military personnel: OfficersTt1 16:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Αρχίσαμε πάλι :-( Tt1, Roitr (Oops...) or whatever your name is, what are you saying, that Primo Maresciallo dell'Impero outranked the Soviet Generalissimo, or the other way round? Latinus 17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Generalissimo it's not God, but it's rank equivalent to Generalissimo of other countries, to General of the Armies of United States-"seven-star" general-George Washington United States Army Insignia Home Page equivalent to to Shögun in Japan and to Magister militum Roman Empire. See Generalissimo.Tt1 17:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And also equivalent to FM in the UK and G of the A in the USA. Since this is a comparative table, you can't say one outranks the other. -- Necrothesp 17:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's wrong! It's equivalent British Generalissimo (Prince Rupert of the Rhine in past) and to to General of the Armies of United States-"seven-star" general-George Washington in past United States Army Insignia Home Page.Primo Maresciallo dell'Impero is equivalent to Chinese WWII rank Chief Marshal of China and not to Generalissimo of China and not to Generalissimo of other countries. Maresciallo dell'Impero is equivalent to Chinese WWII rank Marshal of China and to Marshal of USSR. Tt1 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

However, placing all of those ranks/titles in one line would suggest that they are as equivalent as modern ranks of Captain-Kapitan-Hauptmann and so on, while this is untrue. Perhaps a note that the NATO rank code does not fit the pre-NATO schemes would be in place. Polish marszałek Polski was not equal in rank to the Generalissimo of USSR, General of the Armies or any other rank. These can be compared and could be treated as equivalents, but not to the point where the table would suggest that the ranks were interchangeable (as NATO ranks are). Halibutt 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Since we cannot say which of these ranks are comparative, then they should probably be listed separately from the table. -- Necrothesp 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. It is hard to compare them using the NATO rank system, but we have the reference and footnote system to do that. Excluding them would suggest that these ranks were not used, while they were. I must say that I don't really understand your arguments behind the desire to present the 1939-1945 ranks as if they were 2005 ranks. Halibutt 20:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. I have no such desire. I'm merely saying that the table implies that Mussolini, Pershing, Stalin etc outranked officers from other countries, which is inaccurate. -- Necrothesp 15:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand currently the table implies that their ranks were equivalent to modern OF-10, while this is untrue. Halibutt 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added Free French ranks - http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/graphics/frenchranks-main.jpg ,http://www.uniforminsignia.net/browse.php?kontinent=&stat=France. I change Greek and Poland flag. From 1828 to 1970, Greece had two national flags. The white cross and blue stripes flag was used outside the country,including at the coast. whereas the plain cross flag was used inside! See http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gr-evna2.html and www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/pl-pres.html. Also I correct WWII Italian ranks. See http://www.regiamarina.net, http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/italynavyranks.htm, http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/graphics/italyranks-main.jpg, http://www.esercito.difesa.it. -Roitr 11:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Italy

I completed the addition of Italy. The sources I used were: [22], [23], [24] and [25]. There might be some more glitches to do, but it seems more or less ok to me. Halibutt 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Generał armii

Tt1, please stop adding the rank of Generał armii to the list. It was invented by the Soviets in charge of the Polish Army in 1954 (yes, almost a decade after the war) and abolished... 2 years later. It does not belong here. Halibutt 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

WW2 ranks

I suspect, although I haven't researched this, that there were no exact equivalents to some ranks, and no formal agreements between countries on what equalled what. If I have time I will look into it. Grant65 | Talk 08:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have a point, at least as far as formal ranks go. But I'm still thinking about various issues. Grant65 | Talk 08:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Hitler having a formal SS rank per se (certainly he was Himmler's superior regardless of rank). Do you have a source for the existence of anything above Reichsfuhrer-SS? —Kirill Lokshin 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Sources:[26], [27], [28].--Nixer 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as this states, Hitler's title was honorary. We should probably list Hitler and Himmler both in the separate table; the idea is to divide titles created for specific people from ranks held by "regular" officers. —Kirill Lokshin 22:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

May be his title was "honorary". "Chief marshal" also a honorary title. Himmler according official (German) correspondence between SS and army ranks was the same level as Grossadmiral and Fieldmarshal. If we take a criteria to separate titles that held by only one person, we should also separate for example Главный маршал авиации. There were also officially existing titles that nobody held (for example, Главный маршал инженерных войск).--Nixer 03:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Re. your last post on my talk page: I don't think it was a deliberate deletion; the same thing happened to me recently when I and another editor both posted simultaneously and there was no "edit conflict", as there should have been. Someone should take it up with the software people. Grant65 | Talk 19:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the article/discussion. You seem to have Husnock on side at the moment at least. Grant65 | Talk 09:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Pretty, pretty please. Could you please stop blind reverting? It took me some time to corrrect all the footnotes and the HTML, and you blind reverted all of my changes in a matter of seconds after I posted them... Please, if you have some corrections - feel free to add them, but please do not ruin my work. Please. Halibutt 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert the proper version. It had been discussed for more than month. and was located in Comparative military ranks of World War II/temp since the page was protected from editing. Now I copied the result of discussion in the article page. There is too many to correct in your improper version - table form, ranking, need add a number of strings, footnotes and many other.--Nixer 17:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I responded here and reverted to the full version. If you believe your version is better, feel free to add it, but please do not delete my work. I too spent some time on the table and I see no reason why should my work be dumped and not yours. Please, just add Poland, correct footnotes and correct UTF, and we could replace the article with your version. How about that? Halibutt 18:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I also spent time, and moch more than you. And you're reverting to a version of the last month. If you want to add, please add Poland to the proper version.--Nixer 19:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No Nixer, you are removing both Poland and Greece. We are adding information, you are subtracting it. If you want to use a fancy table format, you will have to integrate Greece and Poland into your version, not remove valid information. Latinus 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not revert the proper version. You're adding it to a vandalized version. You will be reverted again.--Nixer 19:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it a vandalised version? It seems fine to me - please don't remove accurate information (the Greek and Polish ranks). Latinus 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispite how it seems to you, its completely improper.--Nixer 20:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So, Nixer. What are we going to do about our little edit war? You do realise that the Greek and Polish ranks are staying - so what do we do? Latinus 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

They have to be added to the proper version of the article.--Nixer 23:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that Halibutt had already added them to the live version before you added your version, you should add them to the temp version - it'll give you something to do while you're blocked. Latinus 23:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

He added it not to live version, but to vandalized version full with Tt1's own wild fantasies. Discussed and live version was in the talk page.--Nixer 00:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I get it - I'll see what I can do. I have a large essay to complete though, so it could take a while. If you like, you could be getting on with it as well. Latinus 00:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea Tt1's versions were good or bad, I simply added it to the only official version of that article out there. Halibutt 11:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you call "official version"? It vas vandalized version.--Nixer 14:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The one in the article's namespace. I already told you, it might've been vandalized or not, I don't really care. Even if it was, it does not make your vandalism right. Just add your corrections to the article and all will be fine. Halibutt 16:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why we should redo all the work of the last month only because you chose the vandalized version?--Nixer 18:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since combining both versions rather than respecting the work of others seemed like a huge problem to you, I did it myself. Is it ok now? Halibutt 17:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No. It is not right now. For example, in British army of that time there was no commodores of 1st and second class, Soviet General-Major is not correspondent to Brigadier General, Japan army also had no rank correspondent to Brigadier General. Soviet Chief Marshal of service was superior to Marshal of service, there was no Midshipman rank, Marshal of specific arm was not only in aviation, Soviet Admiral correspondent to British Admiral, not Vice-Admiral, and many other mistakes, big and small. This is mixture of ranks of different times with wild fantasies of Tt1.--Nixer 18:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)