User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2016/May

Archives

November 2015
December 2015
January–February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016

Kurt Meyer

Just noticed your recent edits to this article - thanks for your work on it. I had a hack at it in 2010 after I stumbled across a very strangely intent contributor who wanted to treat any mention of war crimes as hoaxes and slander, which is the reason it ended up with such a scrupulously and extensively cited section on the trial! I had always felt the rest of it was a bit concerning but lacked the time or sourcing to follow it up - glad to see someone has given it a good overhaul. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray: Thank you! I appreciate it. One interesting thing I noticed, as I was going through the Waffen-SS personnel/unit articles was that the only areas that were cited were the sections about war crimes; see a typical example here: 6th Army (Wehrmacht), and many more. My philosophy is if people who want to add material about war crimes have to do the heavy lifting and add sources, those who want to have material about heroic deeds should not get a free pass.

There's still a bunch of dubious material out there (see my user page). The myth-making is a topic of interest to me; see for example:

Oh well, I'm honestly surprised why the mythology still lives on. I do what I can. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Wehrmacht

Come to think of it, Clean Wehrmacht needs a lot of work -- perhaps you may be interested in collaborating on it? It seems a large and complex topic to handle on my own. Please let me know your thoughts. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do so. I'll see what I can wrangle up; I think I can get more of Ben Shepherd's work in there, as well as perhaps some interesting case studies such as this. It would also be very valuable to get some more material in there on the SS Einsatzgruppen and Wehrmacht collaboration; while my print sources are a bit limited, we could also look at Irving v. Lipstadt expert reports such as this and this, plus Hilberg's "Destruction". We could also include some info on the partisan war, using Shepherd and maybe this. I like the portion about ideology, and it would be good to address the extent of the military's indoctrination. I understand that the article shouldn't be a recap of "War Crimes of the Wehrmacht," but I feel it might be worth putting in a summary and contextualization, because otherwise the transition from "preparations" to "foundation" (after the war) is a little jarring. Anyways, I'll be glad to help. GAB^Hello! 20:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article that may prove useful Nazism and the Wehrmacht (although it could use some some work itself, in terms of structuring into sections, to improve readability). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Your Milhist work is really impressive, especially Rommel myth. I hope to get back into the swing of content editing myself. In any event, keep up the good work! GAB^Hello! 23:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: thank you for our message. Yes, the Rommel myth was an interesting article to work on. I did not know much about Rommel, or that his myth even existed. I randomly came across the Erwin Rommel article, by, if I recall correctly, linking from Hans von Luck (another article in the mythology genre, largely cited to his own memoirs).

Anyway, I was stunned to see a section on "Humanitarianism", with citations to ancient 1950s sources. It seems amazing that one of Hitler's leading generals could be referred to in such a manner in 2016 :-). (Or a general of any army, for that matter, as their vocation is to kill, maim and destroy, however noble (or, in Hilter's case, ignoble) their aims may be).

Now that I think about it, it might be interesting to include this to the Rommel myth article, as well as this, which has this interesting quote:

"Of course, the Germans were aware of Italian reprisals behind the front lines. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, they seem to have exercised little control over events. The German consul general in Tripoli consulted with Italian state and party ofﬁcials about possible countermeasures against the natives, but this was the full extent of German involvement. Rommel did not directly intervene, though he advised the Italian authorities to do whatever was necessary to eliminate the danger of riots and espionage; for the German general, the rear areas were to be kept “quiet” at all costs. Thus, although he had no direct hand in the atrocities, Rommel made himself complicit in war crimes by failing to point out that international laws of war strictly prohibited certain forms of retaliation. By giving carte blanche to the Italians, Rommel implicitly condoned, and perhaps even encouraged, their war crimes."

Any thoughts? Thanks, GAB^Hello! 20:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Yes, I think these are worth adding. I'd be careful though about ascribing any direct war crimes to Rommel, as Sönke Neitzel stated about him in 2012 that "he did not commit war crimes that we know of." On a separate note, it's interesting how in a round-about way Rommel leads back to the Clean Wehrmacht. That's where sources on Rommel and Waffen-SS intersect to an extent. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there are some real overlaps. But I should be able to get working this weekend. GAB^Hello! 23:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wittmann Question

Hello K.e.coffman:

I am working on a c/e of this article you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors. I have come across this sentence in the Normandy section:

""The Waffen-SS may have fought with distinction during the Battle of Kursk but could not match the army's success, hence Dietrich's attempts to manufacture a hero out of Wittmann."

Who is Dietrich? Could you add his first name and position? Was he Propaganda Minister or some such? Thanks.

Regards Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can take care of that. Kierzek (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It references Sepp Dietrich, who is linked and referred to at the beginning of the section. I assume Kierzek had already linked SD. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that - apologies! Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wittmann GOCE Edit

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Michael Wittmann has been completed. I also archived citation 48 for you.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the improvements! K.e.coffman (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven J. Zaloga has his own forum/board

BTW - you may not know that Zaloga has his own forum/board known as "Allied WWII AFV Discussion Group", which is dedicated to Allied Armor which incorporates "militaria" interest; including model making. See: [http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208 "Allied WWII AFV Discussion Group"]. Therefore, military board affiliation in and of itself does not prove an author/historian is not an RS source as to his books/works; ofcourse, I am not saying a board or forum by anyone should be used for RS citing; I am talking about affiliation, only. Before I came over to Wikipedia to edit and write, I used to post on a number of boards and still read a few once in a great while; that is how I know of this one. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip. I will check it out. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wehrmachtbericht

Please refrain from deleting the Wehrmachtbericht wording, which is properly cited, without achieving prior consensus. I consider removal without consensus vandalism. Thanks and happy editing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note; I responded at Talk:Erwin_Rommel. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Work

nice work on 'black supremacy'..at least what is there currently (minus the final section) is in line with Wikipedia article policy and simply no longer so god awful embarrassing....see the section I created in talk on the final section (and added to)...respond there if want...it's tempting to leave some meat in the article but...68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

commented more in talk thread on final section if your still interested in working on it..(note I asked the page be unprotected and also looked into creating a username but ran into problems with both so I can't edit the article)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]