Talk:Johann Mickl

Dispute over the place of birth of Mickl and his mother's ethnicity

There appears to be a dispute about exactly where Mickl was born and the ethnicity of his mother. The two sources being used by me are the Austrian and German Biographical Encyclopedias. User:Doncsecz appears to have formed the view that the mother's name is Prekmurian, and the spelling of her maiden name in the sources is wrong. so this should be included even though no source has been cited that states this, and that the naIt appears that the user has then concluded that the name of the town in which she was born was known by its Prekmurian/Slovene name of Zenkovci. The ethnicity of his mother is WP:OR unless there is a reliable source for it (none has been provided by the user). The name of the town at the time was Zelting, and this is what the source says. These changes need citation to a reliable source, otherwise they will be reverted as not being compliant with WP policy. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

See the older version:

Mickl was born in Zenkovci|Zelting, near Bad Radkersburg|Radkersburg in the Duchy of Styria, then a part of the Austria-Hungary|Austro-Hungarian Empire. His father Mathias was a farmer from Terbegofzen, and his mother Mary (née Dervarič) was from Zelting. – there is no clear and real source, there is contradictions. Zelting is Zenkovci's German name, but Zenkovci is prekmurian village (in the Hungarian Kingdom). The Dervarič family name is typical Prekmurian name, but the German source not mentioned Dervarič's place of origin. So that is necessary clarified this contradictions. Doncsecz^talk 16:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no source for the mother's ethnicity, so it cannot remain just because you say it is so. It may be that the Zelting in question is not the same one that you state was ruled by the Hungarians. The source clearly states that the Zelting mentioned was in the Steiermark.I will therefore remove the link and the ethnicity until some source clarifies the matter. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have located Zelting (now a suburb of Radkersburg Umgebung, in Bad Radkersburg, so have amended the linking. This Zelting is still within Austria, and is located on te L261 road, just west of the Austrian-Slovenian border. The mother was also from Zelting (not Zenkovci). My mistake in conflating the two. I have rendered the spelling and diacritics as they are provided in Richter, which is appropriate. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

POV issues because of unreliable sources

This article is mainly based upon two sources:

1. Richter, Heinz; Kobe, Gerd (1983). Bei den Gewehren—General Johann Mickl—Ein Soldatenschicksal [With the Guns—General Johann Mickl—A Soldiers Fate] (in German). Bad Radkersburg, Austria: Selbstverlag der Stadt Bad Radkersburg;
2. Schraml, Franz (1962). Kriegsschauplatz Kroatien die deutsch-kroatischen Legions-Divisionen: 369., 373., 392. Inf.-Div. (kroat.) ihre Ausbildungs- und Ersatzformationen [The Croatian Theatre of War: German-Croatian Legion divisions: the 369th, 373rd and 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Divisions and their Training and Replacement Units] (in German). Neckargemünd, Germany: K. Vowinckel.

Both sources are strongly biased, and both sources are used uncritically. The result is an article which reproduces their respective bias. Richter & Kobe phrase their bias as such:

• Johann Mickl, ein aufrechter Sohn des südsteirischen Grenzlandes, war in eine Zeit hineingestellt, die in unserer Heimat von Kampf und Krieg geprägt war. Als Soldat und Führer von Menschen hatte der spätere Generalleutnant Mickl in zwei Weltkriegen zu beweisen, was in ihm steckte. Aber nicht nur im Kriege, sondern in einer Zeit, die danach kam, hatte er mit der Waffe in der Hand die engere Heimat um Bad Radkersburg gegen Willkür verteidigen müssen. Die Synthese von Soldat und Mensch hat in diesem Manne die ewig gleichen Werte aufrechten Soldatentums verkörpert sein lassen, die da Aufrichtigkeit, Tapferkeit und Mut, Achtung vor dem Gegner und Fürsorge für die Soldaten sind. Darüber hinaus zeichnete Johann Mickl ein hohes Maß an Menschlichkeit aus, das ihn neben seiner Heimatliebe und seiner persönlichen Bedürfnislosigkeit prägte. (Johann Mickl, an upright son of the Southern Styrian borderland, was put into a time that in our homeland was marked by struggle and war. As a soldier and leader of humans, the later Lieutenant-General Mickl had to prove what was in him in two world wars. But not only in war, but in a time that came afterwards, he had to defend the narrower homeland of Bad Radkersburg against arbitrariness with weapons in his hands. The synthesis of soldier and man has in this man embodied the eternally equal values of upright soldierhood, which are sincerity, bravery and courage, respect for the enemy and care for the soldiers. In addition, Johann Mickl distinguished a high degree of humanity, which shaped him next to his love of his homeland and his personal needlessness.)

Such a clearly biased source has to be treated with extreme care. It is a questionable source, self-published by or with Mickl’s hometown, i.e. presumably with no editorial oversight. The accounts based upon Richter & Kobe provide too much details to be true. I will contrast two accounts with other sources:

• See e.g., Die Ereignisse von Jänner bis Ende Juli 4 : Das Kriegsjahr 1916 1 [Textbd.] (4 : Das Kriegsjahr 1916 ; 1 ; [Textbd.] ;), p. 158, part of the official Österreich-Ungarns letzter Krieg 1914-1918 on the attack on the Cuklahöhe. According to this account, two companies took the Italian stronghold. The attack started at 3 a.m. and left 5 dead and 30 men wounded. One officer and 82 soldiers were captured. The counterattacks from 13 to 20 February left 27 men dead and 63 wounded.

Not only are these different numbers from the numbers given in the article. The article furthermore provides an unbelievably detailed account, including

• • men disappeared up to their neck in snow
  • dawn was beginning to break, threatening to expose the assembled force to flanking Italian positions

Even more dramatic:

• • Schlatte then came forward, carrying the trunk of an alpenrose, a shrub that grows just above the tree-line in the Alps. He used the trunk to reach the channel ledge, and the troops were able to enter the gutter with his help. The troops could now see the glow of the candles in the Italian position.
  • The Austrians were in an exposed position in deep snow and with extremely cold winds at an altitude of 1,700 metres
  • high smooth ice wall to enter the gutter, which even highly experienced climbers were unable to scale

Such a narration is full of intricate details, creating some sort of inappropriate suspense, transforming the Austrian soldiers into heroes and featuring even a cameo appearance by Benito Mussolini.

A second example from Richter & Kobe is their depiction of the Battle of Sidi Rezegh. The literature on this battle is sizable, so it is possible to compare accounts. W. E. Murphy wrote in The Relief of Tobruk (1961), part of the Official History of New Zealand in WW II (p. 373), that about 960 POW were held in a POW cage near an undefended MDS. This was taken by German soldiers and Mickl thus freed. (p. 385) The whole story of Mickl single handedly freeing himself and his men provided by Richter & Kobe is not supported by this source and it certainly reads like fiction.

Author Gerd Kobe served under Mickl as Major im Generalstab. He is the source for numerous quotes and anecdotes, reproduced by Wikipedia as fact, that create an unabashedly heroic image of Mickl, including, but not only, Mickl defining the role of the soldier (e.g. “We fight not only when victory is guaranteed, but we do our duty and fight where we are, even if that means our inevitable doom.” “My place is with the guns!”), and the notion that Mickl protected the Serbs. I really, really do not see how anyone could take these stories at face value. The Report on the crimes of Austria and the Austrians against Yugoslavia and her peoples (1947) charges Mickl's 392nd division with war crimes (pp. 64-66), e.g. raids of small detachments into territory taken by the partisans with the purpose of killing the peasant population (p. 65).

I may illustrate that further by addressing the problems with the other prominent source. Franz Schraml headed the Kameradschaft of the German-Croat divisions, i.e. the veteran’s organization. He describes the difficulties he faced while putting together this divisional history. He mainly relied on sources and recollections of the German veterans. His revisionist political attitude shimmers clearly through his foreword and introduction. The article cites numbers given by Schraml, p. 186 in regard to Partisan losses during Operation Morgenstern. It is important to give the full numbers: 438 dead, 4 sMG, 5 mGrW, 11 IMG, 1 Panzerbüchse, 88 Gewehre, 157 Pferde, 2329 Schafe, 350 Rinder, sowie Nachrichten-, Flieger- und Sanitätsgerät.

Historian Ben Sheperd explains how such numbers are to be read in his book Terror in the Balkans (2012). He describes in detail the conduct of the 369th Croatian division and explains the increasingly more brutal warfare waged by the Germans in the NDH. Sheperd makes clear that not all divisions were behaving as brutally as others and names the 718th Infantry Division. He challenges the German numbers of killed “Partisans”, however. He argues: ”And as so often before, the contrast between “Partisan dead” and Partisan weapons captured was horribly disproportionate. […] Granted, the Partisans were retrieving some of their weapons themselves, some among their number would have been unarmed in any case, and the figures for Partisan dead were subject to other distortions also. Yet this was still the kind of massive shortfall that had hundreds of noncombatant deaths written all over it.” (p.223) The proportions between the numbers he cites for the 369th Croatian division resemble those between the numbers of deaths and weapons given by Schraml.

In general the article is written in unencyclopedic, glorifying language. The appropriate German term for this would be Landserromantik. A couple of random examples are:

• The fighting continued in snowstorms and extreme cold until 16 December, with Mickl forward directing the battle,
• By the evening of 6 July, XLVIII Panzer Corps had breached the first belt of the formidable Soviet defences,
• At this point the previously rough terrain opened up, and with the aid of binoculars the men of the division could see the vast plain behind Oboyan in which the two pincers of Operation Citadel were planned to meet. But the northern pincer had been stalled north of Kursk in heavy fighting,[56] and the 11th Panzer Division had gained the most northern penetration into the Soviet salient achieved by Army Group South during the operation.
• Mickl had four months to whip the division into shape, and ensure that it was equipped, staffed and resourced to do the tasks that lay ahead. Soon the Croatian soldiers became familiar with the tall frame of their commander, whose Austro-Hungarian decorations were familiar to them, but who also wore the Oakleaves and spoke their language.

A sort of icing on the cake are some of the images. There is an image of some German trucks from October 1941. The caption reads: Mickl's regiment struggled through heavy snow and freezing conditions to help stop a Soviet breakthrough south of Rzhev. These are some trucks at a different place and different time than any struggle south of Rzhev by Mickl's regiment. Another image Image of soldiers in Yugoslavia from October 1943 carries the caption: In late February or early March [1944), the 847th Infantry Regiment was unable to advance due to the winter weather. Is there any specific reason to use some random images from six months ealier to illustrate the “struggle” of Mickl’s men with bad weather? I really don’t get it, and, frankly, I think it is grossly misleading.--Assayer (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Johann Mickl

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: delisted Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The article fails criterion #2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". The article is mainly based upon two sources by:

1. Richter, Heinz; Kobe, Gerd (1983). Bei den Gewehren—General Johann Mickl—Ein Soldatenschicksal [With the Guns—General Johann Mickl—A Soldiers Fate] (in German). Bad Radkersburg, Austria: Selbstverlag der Stadt Bad Radkersburg;
2. Schraml, Franz (1962). Kriegsschauplatz Kroatien die deutsch-kroatischen Legions-Divisionen: 369., 373., 392. Inf.-Div. (kroat.) ihre Ausbildungs- und Ersatzformationen [The Croatian Theatre of War: German-Croatian Legion divisions: the 369th, 373rd and 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Divisions and their Training and Replacement Units] (in German). Neckargemünd, Germany: K. Vowinckel.

According to this review of the sources, the article also fails criterion #4 as being non-neutral MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delist: does not meet the current GA requirements for sourcing and neutrality. The review of the sources offered by Assayer is thorough and compelling: POV issues because of unreliable sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delist per above... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• comment. Unlike Coffman I find Assayers arguments far from compelling. Presumptions are made about reliability, peer reviews and the manner of publishing. That said, the style isn't appropriate; it should be rewritten because this appears too often in the article. Dapi89 (talk)
• Delist. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Knight's cross

If I ctrl-f "knight's cross" in this article, I get 3 hits in the lead (including first sentence), 2 in the infobox and another 7 in the article. This strikes me as fanboy-ish writing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

All the mentions are entirely encyclopaedic. The award is part of his notability, so it needs to be in the first sentence and covered in the summary of the article in the rest of the lead, the third in the lead is a mention of the Oak Leaves to the award. The military infobox routinely includes major awards, and the caption is descriptive of the fact he is wearing the award. The five (not seven) mentions in the article body include two in image captions, and they are all part of the narrative about the award and the Oak Leaves to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the number of mentions is excessive, but they use the same glorifying, unencyclopedic language that the article suffers from as a whole. For example, articles about other recipients of the award do not use phrases like one of only 882 and 205th recipient.

The problems with using Richter & Kobe in any context have been discussed, and it certainly should not be used to support praise such as Of modest habits, Mickl had rarely worn the Knight's Cross itself, usually wearing only the ribbon around his neck, and now he merely added the Oak Leaves device to the ribbon. –dlthewave ☎ 00:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

September 2021 edits

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "reducing non-RS Richter & Kobe, per Talk:Johann_Mickl#POV issues because of unreliable sources; excessive intricate detail; npov; rm image of a generic uniform". --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Next diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Further reductions, as excessive and / or dubious: [1]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Here's the overall progress so far: diff. There's still a lot of Richter&Kobe, as well as Schraml; pls see: #POV issues because of unreliable sources. I've tagged the article accordingly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A-class reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Johann Mickl

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Johann Mickl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article failed a good article review in 2019 due to alleged POV issues because of unreliable sources. This is a routine A-class review to determine if this article still meets the A-Class criteria. Schierbecker (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. As I mentioned in the MILHIST talk about these articles, my view is that very odd rationales were taken by a group of editors during the GAR, especially about sources, and even extending to generic images used in the article. I acknowledge some flowery language needed trimming, but most of the criticisms were not based on policy but some weird ideology that the man was being glorified because he had an article that mentioned anything other than the war crimes of his division. This was widespread across many articles about the German war effort at the time and coincided with and preceded the ArbCom case. The article needs some work due to the unjustified deletions, but (for example) the idea that a biography co-written by the historian Heinz A. Richter (who was selected to write Mickl's article in the Neue deutsche Biographie) is unreliable, is utter nonsense. Both sources that were challenged as unreliable were listed by Richter as sources he used to write the NdB article on Mickl. If they are good enough for NdB, they are good enough for WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

PM - just one other question on Schraml - does Richter use this source heavily and/or refer to it positively or just use it lightly? As an example of my line of thinking, I've seen a lot of sources, including ones we'd consider highly reliable, cite the works of John Newman Edwards to some extent but I don't think we'd ever want to rely on Edwards on enwiki. I don't see why Richter should be considered unreliable at all and would just like a little more clarification on Schrmal. Hog Farm _Talk 23:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi HF, regarding Schraml. This is an example of a participant-written history, where a source should only be used for what it is reliable for. Franz Schraml headed the Kameradschaft of the German-Croat divisions, i.e. the veteran’s organization of the three divisions that were manned mainly by Croats but had predominantly German cadre (368th, 373rd and 392nd). His book covers these three divisions. Participant-written histories are a valuable source of information of units, for example, Cecil Lock's battalion history of the 10th Battalion (Australia) is used heavily in that article, despite the fact that Lock was a private soldier in the battalion, and a wheelwright by trade. The same applies to Frank Allchin's history of the 2/10th Battalion (Australia), Allchin was the battalion quartermaster and a clerk by trade. Neither was a historian. For plain factual information, such as where the unit deployed and when, which battles it fought and where, how many casualties it suffered in those battles, the names of commanding officers and those who were decorated, both of these books are outstanding sources. For critical analysis of operations those battalions undertook, not so much. For that we go the Charles Bean's official history of Australia in WWI, or Gavin Long's official history of Australia in WWII, or history books about specific battles. So far as Schraml is concerned, it is my view that he is fine to use for the sorts of things that one might use Lock or Allchin for, but not for the sorts of critical analysis that Bean or Long might provide. So to say that he is entirely unreliable and cannot be used for anything at all is just nonsense. Schraml's accounts of the outcomes of battles, especially where we know the Germans often counted civilians murdered in reprisals as enemy casualties, must be clearly attributed and contrasted with accounts from Partisan sources, for example. The same applies to Kobe (who was Mickl's principal operations officer) and although their relationship may have been difficult at times, obviously held him in some regard. My point here is that the labelling of Schraml and Richter & Kobe as entirely unreliable sources is nonsense, and should not be used as a justification for downgrading the article. All that said, this was written fairly early in my WP career (2015) and I have learned a lot since then, and even with some of the deleted material reinstated it needs some considerable work, trimming flowery stuff and attributing Schraml and Kobe where needed. I wouldn't nominate it for GA in its current condition, mainly because it was butchered by an editor who was on a crusade at the time. I'm not against it being downgraded to B, but it should be for the right reasons (probably lack of comprehensiveness, a few areas where better sources are needed, and some balance issues), not some weird ideas about the sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment, strongly leaning towards delisting I know nothing about this person, but it's surprising that the material on his lengthy and fairly senior service in the fighting in Yugoslavia makes little reference to the civilian population of the area: it's like the war was being fought in a desert or similar. Given that civilians are central in all partisan warfare and atrocities against civilians were common in this fighting, this doesn't seem credible unless there are sources explaining the matter. The tone of the article as a whole is similar, and never acknowledges the political and criminal aspects of the war Mickl was involved in. Likewise, there appears to be no material on his views towards the rise of the Nazis and the resulting Nazi-led government. This doesn't reflect the way in which modern biographies of senior(ish) German officers of World War II are written, and I don't think the article would pass an A-class review now in its current form. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear Nick-D, I agree. It isn't A-Class, desperately needs context, and I wouldn't nominate it at GAN as it is now, for that and other reasons. My point is about the identified sources and their uses. ie the reason for delisting, not whether it should be. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I'm not disagreeing with your views above, and I'm not at all competent to comment on the references here. If the sources are reliable but not sufficient for the article meet modern A-class bio standards, then the article likely wouldn't pass a nomination. From looking in Google Books, it seems that the English language literature on Mickl is largely lowish quality works on his role as an armoured commander. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.