Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hermann Fegelein

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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 promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Hermann Fegelein

edit
Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Hermann Fegelein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating the article on behalf of Diannaa (talk · contribs) and Kierzek (talk · contribs). I believe the article worthy of a Military History A-class rating. I have contributed a little to the article myself, but I don’t think I should be credited much for the progress made so for. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

There's literally hundreds of Nazi military rank insignia on the Commons, and none of them have any copyright information about the original designs. They are probably PD-shape. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else which needs to be addressed at this point in time? Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From Nikki... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a PD-shape template to the file. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • all redirects are logical (NFA)
  • reflinks all good (NFA)
  • isn't part of his notability related to his command of SS-Florian Geyer? I expected to see that in the lead.
  • for consistency, it might be best to have all references and further reading formatted the same (ie with refbegin/end templates or not
  • issn needed for Der Spiegel
  • locations needed for publication of two references, Vinogradov & Der Spiegel
  • trans-title fields needed for Eberle & Uhl 2001, Fest 2006 and Jaeger
  • while not necessarily precluded by WP:ELMAYBE, I see no reason that lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de would be considered a "knowledgeable source", especially as it provides no info on where the material on the page comes from
  • the dates of rank section isn't quite right, as I understand the ranks of SS-Brigadefuhrer and above were still ranks of the Allgemeine-SS, the Waffen-SS ranks follow (ie Generalmajor of the Waffen-SS). The Waffen-SS general ranks being an amalgam of both.
    • Well, one could hold different ranks in both; and it also depends on the rank table in comparison being used. We had a discussion on this on the talk page and used the German comparison table. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The table is a bit weird, though. From a military perspective, the only ones that matter (IMO) are the Waffen-SS ones. Many Wehrmacht officers had Allgemeine rank far below their service rank, someone could be an SS-Mann and a commissioned officer at the same time, but their Allgemeine rank had nothing to do with their military skills or responsibilities. I would suggest integrating the Allgemeine ranks into the narrative of the relevant section(s), and leaving just his Waffen-SS ranks in the Dates of rank section. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article isn't consistent about Fegelein's fate. The Death section essentially states Mohnke closed the CM (obviously without a judgement) then didn't see him again. He was handed over to the RSD and shot. But elsewhere it says he was found guilty by the CM. My understanding is that the consensus is he was too drunk to be tried, so Mohnke handed him over and the RSD shot him on Hitler's orders. If the facts are blurred, they need to be teased out to a greater extent, including the various versions
    • Again discussed on the talk page at length. The version in the article is the one accepted by the majority of RS sources and it was agreed to put the alternative in as a footnote. The book in the footnote must used with caution as it was a Soviet book put together for Stalin and only edited by Eberle & Uhl. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read the discussion in the archive. I don't think that discussion really leads us to where we currently are regarding the article, as the current article text ends up being contradictory. ie the Death section says there was no CM, Mohnke curtailed it when he realised F's condition, but nevertheless F got shot. Either he was CM or he was not. If the academic consensus is that he was CM'd (I'm not at all sure it is), then he was killed judicially, if not, then he wasn't. My reading of various sources on this (wider than the sources used in the article at present) is that the jury will always be out on the circumstances of his death. The fact that the RK arbiters decided something post-facto is neither here nor there. While it should be mentioned, it shouldn't state it as fact, it should just state that they determined it to be such. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be mentioned that Hogl was sent to find Fegelein, and that he was himself the deputy of the RSD and the main bodyguard unit commander
    • He was the bodyguard commander for the RSD unit for close security for Hitler but not the FBK commander. It is mentioned that Hogl "caught him" but I will tweak it. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • He was the CO of the 1st Battalion of the RSD was he not? Directly responsible for Hitler's protection? As well as the 2IC of the RSD?
        • Yes, but one cannot say "he was the main body guard commander"; that is what I was replying to. Johann Rattenhuber would be the main RSD commander with Hogl, his deputy, head of the RSD unit for Hitler's close security; but he was not over the SS-Begleitkommando commander who was in charge of Hitler personal security unit; when acting together, Rattenhuber was in charge. That was my point. Anyway, the tweak you wanted is done. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I think we're at 6s and 7s. I just wanted to follow up the whole "abandoned his post" thing. Fegelein had two jobs, one was Himmler's liaison to Hitler, the other was with SS-FHA. His instinct for self-preservation and understanding of what people in the Bunker were thinking (as reflected in the sources) isn't reflected in the article. That doesn't mean he wasn't a deserter, it just means that his situation isn't being presented in a balanced way.
        • done - added detail as to his "instinct for self-preservation" and not wanting to commit suicide in the bunker, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are right, and that is why the note added states "... Based on this stated chain of events, author Veit Scherzer concluded that Fegelein, according to the German law, was deprived of all honours and honorary signs and must therefore be considered a de facto but not de jure recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross ". Does this not exactly reflect what you are suggesting? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think we can have the article (whether in notes or in the body) contradicting itself without proper explanation in the body. It just can't be presented as a contradiction in the text, then "clarified" in a note. He either was CM'd or wasn't. Do we know? If not, then someone (whomever from the RK mob or later scholars) have made assumptions about his RK. As I see it, the article is contradictory at the moment. It essentially says he was shot out of hand, but also says that he was CM'd and lost his honours. It can't be both.
                • The issue had been discussed before see here. I had advocated adding the "alternative end" to the article based on current histories assessment of whether Fegelein is or is not a de jure recipient of the Knight's Cross. A footnote to the article was the concession made back then. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Misterbee, he said above to have read that discussion; what concerned me then as now is giving undue weight to the cited text from "The Hitler Book" edited by Eberle & Uhl and the "conclusion" reached by Veit Scherzer; but with that said, have a crack at it or maybe @Diannaa: can. I cannot at the moment (work calls). Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I understood what was said, I am not that dumb. I tried to express (in a very euphemistic way), that back then I wanted to have the info part of the article, equally balanced among the two scenarios. But, back then, I felt that the main editors of the article were absolutely convinced that Mohnke was "innocent" and not involved in Fegelein's death sentence/execution and felt that Eberle & Uhl got it all wrong. Placing the info provided by Eberle & Uhl and Scherzer's conclusion in a footnote, was the best can do at the time without upsetting (or causing an edit war over the issue) the main editors (so I felt at the time). Having said that, I absolutely agree with Peacemaker, it is a better solution to place the alternative end in the main body of the article. Back then, this seemed an unachievable objective. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It needs to be made clearer that accounts of his death differ, and if one version is preferred by historians, say why. I think putting one version in a footnote might be a little POV. Or is one version too fringe to appear in the article at all? I stayed out of the debate at the time, because I don't have access to all the sources, and I still don't know what to think. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Misterbee, I was not implying anything, just thought you may have missed his reply above, lord knows I have missed things before. We are here to work together; I thought the footnote was the best way to handle it then; I expressed my concerns then and above and then added have a go of it; so I believe we are on the same page as to an addition now. Diannaa, as to your comment, the version most historians state is the one in the main part of the article now, but an addition with an alternative end can be made. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, who is in the lead on this? Does your last comment imply that the content of the footnote should be integrated into the main body of the article? I want to be sure to what we agreed here. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead. Unfortunately, I am off to work. Kierzek (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Made the change, please check MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
done by Diannaa. Thanks, D. Kierzek (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the way it is worded in the Death section (although there is probably some unnecessary repetition of the bit up to the point of the CM being ordered), but the Awards etc section still states that F was sentenced to death. It is not at all clear that he was, despite Scherzer's conclusion, so I think something more reflective of the two versions needs to be reflected here as well. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Dianna has included material from Fegelein's Horsemen, all my major comments have been addressed, I am moving to support. If this is going to FAC, there are two things I'd recommend, looking at my comment on the ranks table, and tempering the last sentence in the Awards section regarding the fact that the de facto/de jure issue with his awards is just one man's opinion, and reflects only the NKVD version of events. Well done, this really is a great collaboration of a number of editors. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine. I've read through the article twice, and made a few style edits. Otherwise, for someone who does not have a very detailed knowledge of the man's career, I found the article overall to be detailed, informative, and well-written. I have only a few remarks/questions, mostly stemming from my ignorance of the subject:

  • There appears to be nothing of his activity between June/July 1944 and his arrest and death. Even as a liaison officer he is bound to have done something during this period; and given the amount of scrutiny Hitler's inner circle has been under by three generations of historians, I would be surprised if something could not be found.
    • Well in large part that is due to the fact that he had been appointed chief of Amt VI—Office for Rider and Driver Training—in the SS-Führungshauptamt on 1 January 1944 and at the same time made the SS liaison officer at Hitler's HQ. Besides attending military conferences, he spent much of his time skirt chasing. Kierzek (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything on how Fegelein was assessed as a military commander? Obviously he was resented as a social climber and opportunist, but some assessment of his leadership capability, or even his status among the men he commanded, should be in the article given that he was a divisional commander.
  • I was going to suggest including a brief mention on his portrayal in Der Untergang, but then I looked at the talk page archive...
  • There is a reference to Beevor 2002 (#30) which does not appear among the list of sources  Fixed -- D.

Otherwise, it looks fine. Constantine ✍ 21:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've finished adding and amending content using Pieper's new book. I've added some of Pieper's analysis of Fegelein's abilities as a commander. The book stops at the end of March 1942, so I am unable to add any further details as to what exactly his duties were once he became Himmler's liaison officer in the Hitler entourage. I think all issues have been addressed as far as we are able. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I am satisfied with the expansion, which gives a fuller picture of his active combat duties. Re his activities as a liaison, I take your word for it that the sources are silent about this period. I am moving to Support. Well done! Constantine ✍ 08:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

CommentsSupport

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Hermann_Fegelein&oldid=677713327"