Talk:1940 Field Marshal Ceremony

Overview
I noticed that there was no article regarding the ceremony, so I made one since it's a very important piece of history. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Good initiative, but it really doesn't say much about the ceremony itself or why it was important. The sections of the main article body belong more properly to a subject like "Field Marshal (Nazi Germany)" rather than in an article about the ceremony. Constantine  ✍  09:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I can't really say I agree? I feel there's plenty information about the ceremony itself. It's very important because it was the first occasion in World War II, that Hitler appointed field marshals due to military achievements. Appreciating the historical circumstances regarding the ceremony, I'd say it's a very good (if not perfect) article. Of course this is just my opinion. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the ceremony itself gets distinctly less space than the context, and is almost telegrahically short and the context sections are rather unconnected with each other. Then there is some info I feel is missing outright. For instance, aside from details about the proceedings of the ceremony itself that could be included, I am sure there is some analysis to be found as to the motives behind raising 12 people to field marshals at one stroke, compared to the sparsity with which this was done in WWI, and the effects this had (read: devaluation) on the prestige of the German Army's highest rank. Constantine  ✍  15:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I partly agree on most of what you said, there can defiantly be added some information about the prestige of the rank. I'm kind of busy tonight, so if you wish to write and add it your own way, feel free. Forgive me if I might edit it a little bit. This was the very first article I created on Wikipedia, and is therefore very proud and protective over it, I'm sure a long-time Wikipedia user like yourself relates and understands what I'm saying. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay Constantine. I have now added much more information regarding the ceremony, reasons for promotion a total of 12 generals, and much more. I don't think you can improve this article much more, in terms of text and understanding. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The depth of the article is better now. It just needs some cite clean up and reference book additions. And given the fact there are other short one day event articles, such as Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday, that stands alone, I believe this one can, as well. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kierzek, I totally agree. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

New section
In the attempt to get this article to GA status I have added a new section or more or less added much more information regarding each field marshals part in the Battle of France and later career and life. I forgot Hermann Goering, but I will add him sooner or later. Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

GA status nominee
I have gone as far as to nominate this article for GA status after all the work and time I have put into it. I certainly believe it deserves the title. Looking forward to see if it actually will pass. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Field marshal section
After many requests, I added a part/section about the legacy of the rank itself. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

GA status
This article deserves a "good article" status, someone should add it, I don't really how that system works. Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It has to be independently reviewed and pass the review to get the icon added and to be listed as a Good Article. See: Good articles. It is not easy and if it doesn't pass, don't take it personally. One can keep working on it overtime. Most articles take a lot of time and work to gain that status. You may want to start out by asking someone to review it in general from a relevant section; for this article that would be: WikiProject Military history/Assessment. If you want to go that route, see the link and follow the directions therein. You will have to add the Military History header to get it on the list for review or you can ask me and I will add the header herein. It is up to you. Kierzek (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Some comments
Per the request on my talk page, I've read through this article and would like to offer the following comments on it.
 * As an overall comment, I think that this is currently well short of GA standard. The article provides very little detail on the event it covers, and contains a fair amount of irrelevant material and some questionable assertions.
 * " In popular culture, the ceremony is regarded as a propaganda stunt" - what does this mean? Surely the opinions of historians are more relevant than "popular culture"
 * "Hermann Göring had already been promoted field marshal in 1938 and was instead promoted to Reichsmarschall, and was the only German to have held this rank" - this implies that non-Germans have held the rank: is this correct?
 * What's the relevance of the paragraph starting with "In 1943, shortly before the surrender of the 6th Army at Stalingrad"? If you want to say that the rank was considered incredibly prestigious and also imposed certain expectations on officers of this level, say this clearly.
 * "The event unofficially downgraded the value of the prestigious rank, to a certain degree." - what this means is unclear, and the number of qualifiers attached renders this confusing to readers. I'm also unsure about the relevance of this entire paragraph.
 * "Most of Hitler's generals were appalled at the possibility of another major war in Europe and thought seriously about overthrowing Hitler and his military ambitions," - that's not accurate. Modern historians generally note the widespread support Hitler enjoyed from the higher echelons of the military, as well as the rank and file. Your 1960s-era source is likely outdated: the lies the surviving senior Nazi Generals put forward to justify their complicity in the war were generally accepted in the Cold War era but have since been discredited.
 * The article doesn't discuss the roles each future Field Marshal played in the invasion of France, which seems a key part of this event
 * Similarly, it doesn't describe why Hitler decided to take the unusual decision to promote so many generals to field marshal. Was this part of the widespread celebrations over the victory against France, or did it form part of his deliberate policy of bribing senior military officers to ensure their support? (which later saw many field marshals and generals awarded large estates in Poland and the USSR and/or given large payments)
 * What's the relevance of the material on the 20 July plot? It would be much better to discuss the subsequent careers of these officers rather than focus on a single event. Did they turn out to be successful field marshals? (in military, political, legal and moral terms - I imagine that many were responsible for atrocities)
 * "Many, if not most, generals and field marshals supported a plot to remove Hitler from power by 1944" - dubious, and again cited to a long-outdated source - removed. Kierzek (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "This allegiance, which millions of soldiers had to pledge, proved to be fateful as it choked opposition to him" - that's rather simplistic. The oath was a major factor (which is why German soldiers now pledge allegiance to the parliament and constitution and are given considerable freedom to refuse orders they judge to be illegal or immoral), but not the only one. Many of the senior officers by this point in the war were deeply committed Nazis, and the level of brutality directed at any opposition to the Nazis suppressed the resistance. - removed. Kierzek (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the relevance of the 'Deaths' section? It includes officers who were not promoted in this ceremony and seems irrelevant.
 * Lumping the above four comments together, I'd suggest that you include a section which discusses the subsequent careers and fates of the officers who were promoted in this ceremony rather than the current piecemeal approach.
 * Many of the sources referenced in the Notes section don't have their full bibliographic details provided in the references section. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's quite a mouthful. I will do my best to improve the points you mentioned. Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just spent about a good hour improving the article, tell what you think of it now. Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't help but notice that the article describes the event it claims to cover in only two sentences and provides little explanation for this event or reflections on its consequences, and many of my above comments remain addressed. The reference to Manstein which has been added is irrelevant: he was only a corps commander, and was in fact promoted (to the rank of full General) for his role in the campaign. Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes well, I did the best I can. I'm aware Manstein was promoted to full General, but since the page was regarding field marshals I didn't think it was that relevant. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't see the problem with old sources. Honestly, I'd say that books or other work created as close to the post-war era as possible is more reliable, like the 1960s book references I added. Furthermore removing the entire section about the army support to remove Hitler from power is wrong. It's a fact that many generals, and some field marshals, supported a plot to remove Hitler from power by 1944, perhaps not most as it previously stated, but many. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More recent histories are generally more useful as they take the substantial developments in the historiography of the war over time into account. In the 1960s the myths that the Germany Army was generally not aligned with the Nazis and had fought a "clean" war were still widely believed. Work by German historians in the 1970s and 1980s completely discredited these views. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to modern historians, let's not forget that the German Army was not a Nazi organization. Under military rule, soldiers and officers were forbidden to belong to a political party and did not have the right to vote, Seeckt always emphasized the importance of being completely neutral and non-political, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying: "In the 1960s the myths that the Germany Army was generally not aligned with the Nazis and had fought a "clean" war were still widely believed." The German Army didn't necessarily fight for just Hitler and Nazism, but for their country and families like every other country in World War II. Here's a quote from a veteran:




 * Of course the Waffen-SS was fanatically committed to Nazism and Hitler, but they also differ significantly from the army. And of course, regular army soldiers did indeed committed war crimes against civilians and so on, I'm not trying to prove you wrong in that, but certainly not all, even Waffen-SS veterans never saw any war crimes, here's another quote:




 * Does this quote mean that the Waffen-SS didn't commit any war crimes? of course not, just the same way evidence proving that crimes had been committed by the army, doesn't incriminate the entire army. What I'm basically saying is that I believe it's wrong to mistrust work in the 1960s and 1970s because "the myths that the Germany Army was generally not aligned with the Nazis and had fought a "clean" war were still widely believed." Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * re Comment 6: While it is probably true that the general staff were not (except for exceptions) generally appalled at the prospect of a major European war (though probably not for reasons of the NS-Lebensraum philosophy, but on more traditional militaristic ground), this does not rule out the possibility (the very likely possibility) that they were appalled at a major European war started by Germany in no position to win it. (And few of them would have calculated with a six-week defeat of France.)
 * re Comment 7: some time ago, I added the actual positions of the respective generals, which should make the matter clear.
 * re Comment 8: Hitler's decision to promote "so many Field Marshals" might be unusual but only partly unusual. Of course his wish to make the general staff loyal by prestigious positions (as well as the infamous "dotations" in money) can be assumed to be an underlying motive - but still, most of the positions of the generals promoted were "natural" Field Marshal positions. The promotion of these generals, given that they fought a victorious campaign holding these positions, was a natural affair. (By a tradition, Field Marshals would only be created for success in war; the unusual thing being the early promotions of Blomberg, Göring, and Raeder). The cases of generals in positions that were not usual field marshal positions but still got promoted are limited to three Army Commanders (usually a Colonel General position) and perhaps the Air Force promitions, which latter can be explained by the fact that Göring being now Reich Marshal, he should have some Field Marshals under him (and perhaps also by an actual significant contribution of the Air Force to the temporary victory).--2001:A61:260C:C01:C0E7:A61E:AD2B:782F (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Too much information
It seems to me that much of the information in this article should be moved to Field Marshal (Germany), and this article should remain focused on the 1940 ceremony itself. The actions of the Field Marshals that participated in the ceremony shouldn't be discussed in depth on this article. Greedo 8  16:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose moving this article or a large portion of it's information to Field Marshal (Germany). Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the article itself deserves its own page, it's just the amount of unrelated and semi-related information that concerns me. Greedo  8  18:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you could mention some specific information it would defiantly be easier for me to agree or disagree with you, as well as making changes to improve the article. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at a later date, and get back to you with specifics. Greedo  8  15:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Major improvement
Hi everyone. I just spent about 2 hours doing huge amounts of cite and reference clean up. It was truly a mess before, but now it's a shiny Wikipedia star. Now it should be able to pass for GA status. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of the new improvements I have re-nominated it for GA status. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Kierzek, both you and I have done a lot of cleaning up on this article, what do you think it needs to get to GA status? I'd also like your opinion on the recent change I made. I changed the top title section from "Field marshal" to "The prestigious rank". Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the section title "Field marshal" better, myself. As for additional work, make sure the sentences or group of sentences on each point/information have good WP:RS citations (and don't use Britannica). And for each book or source used, make sure they are properly listed in the Reference section. Then ask the GA reviewer what it still needs and listen to him or her. Kierzek (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why cant I use Britannica, Kierzek? Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

These references do not have matching citations in §References:
 * Erickson 2001
 * Turney 1971
 * Kesselring 1970
 * Manfred & Joachim 1998
 * Williamson 2006
 * Regan 2004
 * Garver 1988
 * Antill 2007
 * Higgins 2007
 * Dear & Foot 2005
 * Forczyk 2010
 * Melvin 2010

The commonly accepted method for disambiguating two or more citations of an author who has published multiple works in the same year is to add a lowercase alpha suffix to the year portion of the date. So, instead of  use   and 1998a.

Shouldn't the entries in §References be in alpha order?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Trappist they should be in proper order and Jonas you need to fix the cites as is recommended above and add the books cited into the Reference section. Lastly, to answer your query, Britannica is not considered a good RS source by itself; just as one cannot use a Wikipedia article statement by itself as a cited source in another Wikipedia article. Kierzek (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have now added all you mentioned above in the reference book section, Kierzek. What now? Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * However, you are still adding in (and therefore still using) Britannica as a source. Look at the main pages for the men and events being covered here in the article; there should be plenty of WP:RS sources you can use for cites and References besides Encyclopedia Britannica and instead of "spartacus-educational", which I know some reviewers will reject as I have seen other editors cite it in the past. Kierzek (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the argument that Britannica and Spartacus is not a reliable source a Wikipedia policy or merely individuals point of view? And also, most of the field marshals own pages lack reliable source and sometimes sources overall. Therefore, I sometimes feel compelled to use Britannica and Spartacus. I can, however, remove Brit' and Spar' in those sentences where book sfn's are already used? Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I already address the query above. If you don't own books needed, try Google books view of pages for the cites or your library system (to get the books for the cites needed). Kierzek (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, Kierzek. let's say that done. Do you then believe the article could pass for GA status? Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Add in the RS cites and books cited and then I will have a look. BTW, to be clear, Spartacus Educational is a free online encyclopedia, like Wikipedia; so like Wikipedia itself and Britannica, it is not standing alone, a WP:RS source for citing. Kierzek (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Alright, Kierzek, I almost cant think of anything more to do for this article; I have replaced all non-reliable sources with book sources, all of which are referenced with Harvard templates. I have removed, reformulated, changed or switched around information from all over the article. Most notably, I have added much more section about the ceremony itself. What you say it's now worth a GA-nomination? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will read through it and let you know. Kierzek (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. After you look it over, you can put it up and see what the reviewer thinks. Kierzek (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. The article is much better now, I'm sure it will pass. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheeler-Bennett and Wistrich in §Sources are not used in the article.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good spotted. I have removed them. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Napoleon's Marshals
After crowning himself Emperor, Napoleon (I) revived the rank of Marshal of France in a mass promotion c 1804. The initial batch included some quite senior figures who had been generals in their own right before he came to power (eg. Kellerman, Massena, Bernadotte) as well as figures, some of them quite able, who were very much his subordinates (Davout, Soult, Ney etc). Later on other Marshals were promoted (eg. Victor, Marmont, Poniatowski, Grouchy).

Is there any evidence that Hitler's mass promotion was inspired, even in part, by Napoleon's mass promotion? Do any historians speculate that this was the case? If so, it would be worth mentioning.Paulturtle (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)