Talk:Albert Kesselring/Archive 1

Holocaust Details
"At times, his flight path took him over the concentration camps at Oranienburg, Dachau, and Buchenwald.[22]" This sentence is featured in the "Between The Wars" portion of the article, which makes absolutely no sense from a temporal prospective. In addition, it's just sort of shoved in there: there's no other information on concentration camps or the Holocaust there or anywhere else in the article, and no other WWII info in that section. For these reasons I felt that the line was a poor one, and deleted it on 10 Feb.

My edit was reverted with the reason given that "There is a myth that people didn't know. Albert says he did." If that's the reason it was present, it's doing a terrible job. No offense to whomever wrote the original line, but I'm sure Kesselring flew over all sorts of places. How high were these flights (i.e. what did he see)? There's nothing in the article about Holocaust denial, or what Albert saw or said or anything else of use to that line of reasoning. This line about WWII events should either be moved somewhere besides a pre-WWII section and expanded to actually deal with what it's claimed it's supposed to, or (preferably) transferred to a page on Holocaust denial as evidence if it can be fleshed out. If nothing can be done, the line should be deleted in the interests of better writing.

I can't be bothered with edit wars, so I figured I'd come in and say my piece. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.197.29 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Birthdates
there are two differtent dates of birth in the article 195.158.119.176 20:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Corrected Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

When he was born?! August 8 - bgwiki, cswiki, dawiki, eswiki, kowiki, iowiki, itwiki, jawiki, slwiki, fiwiki November 13 - dewiki, frwiki, hewiki, huwiki, kawiki, nlwiki November 20 - ruwiki November 30 - enwiki, nowiki, plwiki, svwiki ~ Aleksandrit 11:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 30 November 1885. So enwiki is correct. The others will follow in due course. Hawkeye7 13:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you specify at authoritative reference? For example, November 20 (per ruwiki) confirmed by Great Soviet Encyclopedia... ~ Aleksandrit 18:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no definitive answer- many legitimate sources list his birthdate as 20 November or 30 November, so we should follow suit by using one source per date and leave it notated as most sources list his birthdate as either November 20th(source) or November 30th(source). Monsieurdl 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

but....
i dont thinks this is a relevant problem, this article is soo important but lack of information. please help me expanding it

Working on World War II service
Kesselring's war service is pretty bare bones before Italy, and I have to go through my library and add a lot more that is not here. He was heavily involved in both the Battle of Britain and the African campaign, and yet little is really here. Any help is appreciated! Monsieurdl 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The best source on Kesselring is his memoirs. This is particularly good for his Great War record. It also details his part in the reconstruction of the Luftwaffe between the wars. So start there. Apart from the bits that you mention that need expanding, a section on his role in Russia in 1941 would not go astray. The campaign against Malta deserves a mention. Kesselring's part in the North African Campaign is often overlooked in the lauding of Rommel and should be greatly expanded. In Italy, Rommel would have withdrawn to the northern Apennines; it was Kesselring who decided to fight the Allies as far south as possible, and who was responsible for the long and costly delaying action that saw the Allies take another year to reach this point. The comment about the loss of an army group in Tunisia requires explanation, and it should be pointed out that Monte Cassino Abbey was destroyed by Allied bombers. The bit about the final surrender in Italy should go, as Kesselring was not present. However, his role in the final campaign on the Western Front also needs expansion. Expand everything! The article on Kesselring should be no shorter and no less detailed than the one on Rommel. Kesselring would have wanted it that way. Hawkeye7 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have always wanted a copy of his book, but never got around to buying it. I HAD a book entitled "The German Army: 1933-1945", but I cannot find it. All sources that I have looked through so far (Shirer, A.J.P. Taylor, etc.) have been very brief when it came to Poland and the Battle of Britain with regards to Kesselring- it is mostly Goering, which is frustrating. I agree that this article should deservedly be the same as Rommel's- no problem there! Thanks a lot for your help! Monsieurdl 01:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My doing this is wasteful. Have a look at the article now and see if it rates B-class status. alas, it is still shorter that Rommel's entry. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I found my book, by the way, and also bought a 2007 reprint of Kesselring's autobiography. I think it would be very helpful if his words were compared to other generals (Guderian, Rommel, Goering, etc.) on various subjects so we can get an idea as to how he thought and how it compared to other viewpoints. This comparison would most certainly broaden the article, don't you think? Monsieurdl 16:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
Parts of the article are, I'd say, simply astonishing, especially because they are taken by the Encyclopedia face value, and not referenced as the POV of their author (actually, most of the ones I am going to describe below are not referenced at all).

For example, in the War Crimes section it is stated that "Kesselring strove tirelessly to avoid the physical destruction of many artistically important Italian cities", which coincidentally is Albert Kesselring's own POV, as stated in a sort of "Address to the Italians" he gave at the time he was under trial accused for the innumerable massacres perpetrated by the Germans at the expenses of the life and property of innocent civilians.

The very same POV, resounds along the whole section, as it was sort of a teaser of his own book, Soldat bis zum letzten Tag: "Most notably, Kesselring tried to preserve the monastery of Monte Cassino, but was unsuccessful.", yet it sounds like it was an uninterested humanitarian endeavor as a whole and not, as it actually was, both a coup of propaganda and a tactical accident.

Furthermore, another clearly apologetic phrase left me speechless: "Kesselring attempted to save the Jews of Rome - as he had earlier saved those of Tunis - by employing them on the construction of fortifications", as if Kesselring was Mr. Schindler in Field Marshall uniform.

Moreover, the article cites the "massacres" perpetrated under Kesselring command and offers his POV on the issue, but fails entirely in offering the victims' POV and in describing their horrific magnitude.

Apologetic is not enough to describe this article, which seems more inclined - not only in the section mentioned above, but also elsewhere - to celebrate, rather than describe, its object: the whole article curiously fails to mention the fact that Kesselring was a staunch Nazi (which was not obvious as it could seem, as many German Generals during WWII were not) and that it was one of the most loyal to Hitler, to the point that he tried to prevent Generals Karl Wolff (SS) and Heinrich von Vietinghoff (Army) from signing an armistice whit Harold Alexander till the morning of May 2nd 1945, that is even after Hitler had killed himself, and while the German Armies on the Southern Front were facing total destruction by the rapid Allied advance. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to forget that Kesselring was a man who believed in a soldiers honor, and to do anything to compromise that would go totally against that. Goering and Kesselring were good friends, and the affiliation with the Nazi Party could easily be explained by such influences- I cannot figure out why you could say he was a staunch Nazi like Skorzeny or Himmler- a soldier is a soldier.


 * As for the partisans issue, he was following orders as an officer in charge and as the evidence states, followed the order by not drawing from any civilians, but civilians that were prisoners or who warranted such action. Partisans engaged in the systematic killing of others and did not deserve preferential treatment- in other words, they had blood on their hands as well. Look at this:


 * In presenting the Prosecution’s case on the first charge the Prosecutor conceded that the German authorities were justified in imposing reprisals after the bombing attack in Rosella Street. After quoting some authorities on the subject (They are fully set out on pp. 3-7 of this volume.), he pointed out that whereas there was authority for destruction of property and incarceration of nationals of occupied territory as reprisals, there was no authority for the taking of human life. The defence argued that in extreme circumstances the taking of human life in the course of reprisals was permissible.


 * 


 * In the end, Kesselring's sentence was commuted, and rightly so. He was no monster, no cold and calculated murderer- he was a soldier, and the facts bear it as such. If you would like to make it balanced by adding the "victims", then their actions as partisans should be duly noted as well. Monsieur dl   mon talk-mon contribs 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, your personal views, which seem to me - so to speak - quite apologetic about Kesserling and somehow inclined to condone Nazi crimes of war and against Humanity, while showing an attitude nearing contempt about the Partisans and the civilians victims, clearly have no interest here.
 * Therefore, let's get back to the goals we must meet here: an article such as this cannot advocate - as you seem to wish - a single point of view, so we can surely describe Kesselring as he described himself (which in fact is what the article presently does), but we must, as well, represent the other relevant points of view accurately and with at least same dignity, and provide context. There's not a single point of view - and certainly not in this case and on such matter - that can be sold here as "the truth" or "the best view".
 * There are many Generals and soldiers who, while serving their Country with both honor and devotion, did not compromise themselves with the Nazi regime as Kesselring did. Some notable Generals and officers risked - or even lost - their lives plotting against Hitler (like Kluge and Rommel) and others, who fought during the whole war - bravely and effectively till the very last day - while hoping in the secret of their hearts to be defeated for the sake of Humanity, like General Frido von Senger und Etterlin.
 * "Goering and Kesselring were good friends", no doubt, and this shall be mentioned, but sorry, it's kinda childish to pretend to explain as such his affiliation with the Nazi Party, like Kesselring was a little boy taken away from the right way - without his consent and almost against his will - by his "bad" friend. Kesselring may have been not Himmler, but, among German top Generals, he surely was one of the most faithful to Hitler's Nazi regime, and this - being without any doubt a fact and a very relevant one - should be noted starting from the incipit of the article.
 * About the wanton massacres - not always "simple" reprisals, we are talking about literally thousands of innocent hostages assassinated, including children, women and elder people, not fighters who "had blood on their hands" - your vision about their "legality" can be easily challenged - and will be - with hard facts and sources, but for now let's say that a soldier who is a soldier doesn't make a butcher of himself (looking for excuses afterwards), even when facing true "monsters".
 * By the way, Kesselring's sentence was commuted, as well as has happened in (too) many other cases like his, once the western Allies resolved that they needed a strong Western Germany in order to face the Soviet threat in the European theater during the Cold War; They realized that such goal could be best achieved by enlisting all Germans in the effort, even those who could be rallied by a Nazi like Kesselring, while others, like the nazi criminal Theo Saeveke, were given full cover and impunity and were put in key places in the German Government. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no personal vendetta against those who fought Germans, believe me- let's get that straight first off. You spoke of being fair and presenting more that one POV, and that is what I am doing- to counter the very idea that Kesselring and the German Army at that time were all BAD and the partisans were all GOOD. That to me ignores the realities of the war.


 * Kesselring did not face the choice of gassing innocent civilians as butchers of the east who gleefully did it, or herding them around and shipping them in horrific ways like those who were in charge of "labor", i.e. slavery, or even those who took civilians and burned them alive in a locked building. He was responding to a threat by a hostile population, and did not just scoop up a large amount of civilians and order them to be executed (i.e. the Heydrich reprisal), no matter what you might say. That is not defending crimes against humanity- that is showing that as far as standards go, Kesselring by no means stooped to the level of others in the regime.


 * Kesselring followed orders- in the ranks of the German Army, there was no room for rejecting orders in the professional army. There was no "lawful order" clause as there is today, no loophole or "out" that enabled Kesselring to do anything but do what he did. To say that he could have ignores as I said before the honor in being a soldier and the duty involved. It is far too easy to come down on Kesselring if the understanding of what being a military man was then is lacking. Only the victors in this case decided who was guilty of war crimes- there was no such trial for those who committed them on the winning side. Where is the balance there? Where is the outrage and the calling for facts to be presented? Until you present to me absolute facts that Kesselring ordered women and children to be shot (not it happened, or his juniors did), then the very mention of them is irrelevant with respect to Kesselring himself.


 * I commented about this because revisionist history of the 20th century is getting very much out of hand, and moments in time are incorrectly being judged by a different time's standard. That is my whole problem here. Monsieur dl  mon talk-mon contribs 00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree total with Monsieurdl: Montesacro's points of view are ridiculous and nonsense!!!! A lot of Italian communist partisans were criminals more dangerous than nazis!!!!--PIO (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you the same user Pio with this wonderful curriculum on it.wiki? -- KS  «...»  02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanna, tu e Montesacro fate notevoli danni a questo progetto!!!! Siete politicamente militanti nelle vostre elugubrazioni quindi meritate la messa al bando!!!! Il mio curriculum lo vedi dove stanno i miei contributi non dove stanno le decisioni di amministratori ignoranti che infestano questo sito bandendo chi non è della loro schifosissima fazione politica comunista o comunistoide!!!!--PIO (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Myths and Facts
To Monsieurdl: AFAIK this article is about Albert Kesserling's article, not a forum to discuss whether "Kesselring and the German Army at that time were all BAD and the partisans were all GOOD".

(Partisans were not all good, of course, and so? Does, under any circumstances, a criminal behaviour justify in itself another, taken apart the immediate self-defense? Is a soldier called to transform himself in a cold-blooded butcher in order to face a butcher? And, in such case, where is the difference between the two? And how to establish a standard about who's a butcher? The clothing?)

BTW, I have already shown you several examples of top German Generals that are quite unanimously considered (including their colleagues and opponents among the Allies) as good soldiers and good Generals and yet were definitely not Nazi and opposed the Nazi regime, like Frido von Senger und Etterlin and Ernst-Günther Baade, and even till the sacrifice of their own lives, like Erwin Rommel and Günther von Kluge, just to name a few.

If your entirely inaccurate and unilateral take about being a "good and honorable soldier" - according to which being such consisted only in blindly following orders and showing loyality to the Commander in Chief (Hitler in this case) till the very end - then we shall conclude that Rommel, Kluge, Senger, Baade and innumerable other Generals and soldiers faithfully serving their Country - rather the bunch of Nazi criminals who dominated Germany and inflicted monumental damage to the whole world and their own Nation - were dishonoured men and soldiers - if not traitors - who deserved both a shameful death and historic record, which is obviously not accepted by any serious historical text.


 * Myth: Kesselring followed orders- in the ranks of the German Army, there was no room for rejecting orders in the professional army.
 * Fact: The records of the trials celebrated in Italy about the Ardeatine Massacre show without any doubt that - even in a case such as this - several German officers and soldiers could refuse to perform orders without facing any consequence. Both the SS major Herbert Kappler and the General Kurt Maltzer (city commander) were present when the commander of the German unit that had been hit at via Rasella by a deadly partisan attack refused to command the firing squad for the reprisal and, after the refusal opposed also by a Wehrmacht colonel, it was Kappler who offered himself to do the job, during which several German refused to fire, and none of them - including the two aforementioned commanders faced any consequence (about this see for example Robert Katz, The Battle for Rome : The Germans, the Allies, the Partisans, and the Pope, September 1943-June 1944, Simon & Schuster, NY, 2003, ISBN 0-7432-1642-3, as reported on page 406 in the Italian edition.). Furthermore, there are innumerable other cases in which orders were refused or worked around, without any serious consequences or no consequences at all. As for the "Kesselring followed orders" excuse, the Nuremberg Verdict addressed it specifically:

"Many of these men have made a mockery of the soldier's oath of obedience to military orders. When it suits their defense they say they had to obey; when confronted with Hitler's brutal crimes . . . they say the disobeyed. The truth is that they actively participated in all these crimes, or sat silent and acquiescent, witnessing the commission of crimes on a scale larger and more shocking than the world has ever had the misfortune to know. This must be said."

- Nuremberg Verdict


 * Kesselring makes no difference. When it suits to his defense, he claims that he had to obey; meanwhile, he says (or implies) he has disobeyed when he deems convenient posing as the savior of the jews or the cultural and artistic heritage.


 * Myth: Kesselring did not face the choice of gassing innocent civilians as butchers of the east who gleefully did it, or herding them around and shipping them in horrific ways like those who were in charge of "labor", i.e. slavery, or even those who took civilians and burned them alive in a locked building.
 * Fact: the article is currently claiming that "Kesselring attempted to save the Jews of Rome - as he had earlier saved those of Tunis - by employing them on the construction of fortifications". In fact, tens of thousands of Italians - not only Italian Jews - were forced into slavery both in Italy (for building fortifications and restoring infrastructure useful to the German war effort) and in Germany (to support the war production), where they were shipped and kept often in horrific ways (and in some cases exterminated for futile reasons). Furthermore, there were several cases in which entire Italian villages were encircled by the Kesselring men and their civilian residents were burned alive in the locked buildings, to the point that even Mussolini issued a protest to the German Ambassador Rahn on September, 15th 1944 in which he denounced the "blind reprisals" based on the orders of Kesselring, and naming him specifically asking why the orders by the very same Field Marshal issued on August 22nd 1944 (to use restraint in the perming reprisals) were being not implemented. These were issued under pressure by the fascist government in response to the intolerable level of the massacres performed by the Germans based on the orders Kesselring had issued on June 17th, 1944 and July ,1st of the same year, and was also based on them that Kesselring was later sentenced to death by a British Tribunal.


 * Myth: Rome "Open City". Successive, unilateral declarations of Rome as an "open city", made at first by the Italian government on August, 14th 1943, and then by the Germans after they had occupied the Italian capital on September, 10th of the same year - not talking about the often inaccurate use and re-use of the concept in movies and literature - popularized the misconception that these declarations had a real value and legal force and that had been observed and respected by the parties.
 * Additional Myth: Kesselring played a key-role in protecting the city from destruction, and obtained "open city" status for Rome to this end.


 * Fact: There was never an agreement between the parties about Rome as an "open city", despite the intense diplomatic efforts by the Vatican - also as a mediator between the opponents - in order to bring the parties to such an effective agreement.
 * Additional Fact: Kesselring declared the whole city "war zone" starting from January, 22nd, 1944: thus it remained, till the arrival of the Allies, so much for the "open city".


 * In fact, the Allies bombed Rome 51 times between September, 8th 1943 and June, 4th 1944, when the city was liberated by Clark's Fifth U.S. Army.
 * The bombings continued till the the city evacuation by the Germans, causing widespread destruction and the death of more than 7,000 civilians. The numerous, repeated and deadly air raids - justified by the Allies with the fact that the Germans, despite their rhetorical declarations of Rome as an open city, still used the city infrastructure and facilities as part of their logistic effort aimed at supporting their front line - are the best and sound proof that, in Rome, the "open city" status was actually never implemented.


 * About the same can be said regarding Florence, where the Germans under Kesselring destroyed all the city bridges - including some of artistic value - but Ponte Vecchio, demolishing a large amount of historical buildings at its two ends instead, in order to prevent the Allies to use the bridge to cross the river Arno. And, a battle was fought within Florence: so much for the pretended "protection" of Italian cities of relevant artistic importance.


 * In conclusion, the open city status was never in effect in Rome (and Florence) and the one thing the "open city" concept was for sure is that it was a very useful tool of propaganda (and, to this end, a quite effective one) and political tool that the Germans and Kesselring cynically used (and rightfully so, from their point of view) to their advantage, in order to put under decisional stress the Allies, aiming to relieve the pressure imposed on their logistical infrastructure by the Allied Air Force.


 * Note: Just in case, among several relevant documents available at the National Archives of the United Kingdom, all of which clarify beyond any doubt that the "open city" status was never operative in Rome, it is of most interest the folder 8/439, which contains a number of filed documents about the Allied policy towards Rome. The file n. 400 is a message sent to the Foreign Office by D'Arcy Osborne, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Holy See, in which he transmits the latest German proposal for declaring Rome "open city", relayed to him by the German Ambassador in Rome, via the Vatican Undersecretary of State; the message was then urgently retransmitted to Washington, and it's dated June, 4th 1944, the very same day Clark's tanks entered Rome. Till the very last minute, the Germans had used Rome and the diplomatic delusion of the never ending talks about the "open city" in order to take any possible advantage out of it, including using the Italian Capital to cover their ordered retreat behind a safer defense line. A large collection of the files in the folder 8/439 is available in Italian translation in Umberto Gentiloni Silveri, Maddalena Carli, "Bombardare Roma - Gli Alleati e la «città aperta» (1940-1944) - Il Mulino - Biblioteca storica, Bologna, 2007, ISBN 978-88-15-11546-1.

As for your call for facts to be presented, it does not belong here: we are not a Tribunal. We are called - at most - to cite Tribunals, and Kesselring was convicted as a war criminal by a Tribunal, as much as his associate Göring was. It is not our duty to develop here a debate about concepts such as the "victor law", or the like.

As for the most current historical assessment about Kesselring, I am going to add to the article a rough translation from the German Wikipedia, which is very interesting in pointing out how political contingency (the Cold War) - not Justice - was at the base of Kesselring "rehabilitation" and liberation under pretext of an illness that apparently did not kill him. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Kesselring followed orders- in the ranks of the German Army, there was no room for rejecting orders in the professional army.
 * This is wrong. The article is correct: "Kesselring did not invoke the "Nuremburg defence". Rather, he maintained that his actions were legal. The court was forced to concede Kesselring's actions were legal". This included the taking of hostages and executions in reprisals, which were legal under the international law of the day. The article clearly states that Kesselring was not convicted on the grounds of following illegal orders, nor of the illegality of the orders that he issued but on the grounds that these were exceeded by some of his subordinates, who may have been encouraged to do so by the tone of his orders. The article also contains a link to the trial transcript.


 * The article is currently claiming that "Kesselring attempted to save the Jews of Rome - as he had earlier saved those of Tunis - by employing them on the construction of fortifications". In fact, tens of thousands of Italians - not only Italian Jews - were forced into slavery both in Italy (for building fortifications and restoring infrastructure useful to the German war effort) and in Germany (to support the war production), where they were shipped and kept often in horrific ways.
 * The article is correct. This point is referenced in the article. Some 7,400 Italian Jews are believed to have been killed by the Nazis.


 * Rome "Open City". Successive, unilateral declarations of Rome as an "open city", made at first by the Italian government on August, 14th 1943, and then by the Germans after they had occupied the Italian capital on September, 10th of the same year. Kesselring declared the whole city "war zone" starting from January, 22nd, 1944: thus it remained, till the arrival of the Allies, so much for the "open city".
 * The article is correct. Perhaps the concept of an "open city" is not widely understood. It simply means that it will not be defended. The city remains occupied and can be used by the occupier. The Allies did not wish to accept this, because Rome was a major transportation hub, and they did not wish to forego the option of bombing it - which is fair enough. Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with declaring a city open unilaterally - as General MacArthur did in Manilla in 1942.


 * Political contingency (the Cold War) - not Justice - was at the base of Kesselring "rehabilitation" and liberation under pretext of an illness that apparently did not kill him
 * The article is correct. Ill health was the stated reason for his release.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Kesselring, the savior of Roman Jews: an unmodest proposal...
To Hawkeye7:
 * "Kesselring did not invoke the "Nuremburg defence". Rather, he maintained that his actions were legal. The court was forced to concede Kesselring's actions were legal". This included the taking of hostages and executions in reprisals, which were legal under the international law of the day. The article clearly states that Kesselring was not convicted on the grounds of following illegal orders, nor of the illegality of the orders that he issued but on the grounds that these were exceeded by some of his subordinates, who may have been encouraged to do so by the tone of his orders. The article also contains a link to the trial transcript.
 * Sorry but, at the moment, I was unable to find the link to the trial transcript: could you please be so kind to include a copy of the URL here? TIA.
 * Anyway, this document clearly states that Kesselring was found guilty on both charges and sentenced to death.
 * The legality of the orders he followed is far from being widely accepted and, for sure, is at least disputable, even in historical perspective, as for example shown here. In any event, we must provide not only accurate data, but also context, which the article lacks to this respect, at least.
 * The article clearly states the reasons why the court found him guilty, and that he was sentenced to death. Perhaps a few more words are in order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Again, as I asked above, could you please be so kind to include a copy of the URL to the transcript trial transcript here? I haven't found it in the article. Thank you. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is correct. This point is referenced in the article. Some 7,400 Italian Jews are believed to have been killed by the Nazis.
 * The article references may be correct, but some parts are bizarre: based on the reference from the Emory Univ. you provided (http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/trial/judgement/05.018.2), one can argue that, according to David Irving, Hitler was willing to save the Roman Jews by holding them as hostages, according to the article, Kesselring was willing to save the Roman Jews by way of forcing them into slavery (sic!), and that Heinrich Himmler was willing to save them by liquidating them quickly in order to spare them the agony either Hitler or Kesselring wanted to impose upon them!
 * Seriously speaking, I find outrageous - and I suspect that I am not alone - accepting face value the idea that Kesselring actual intention was to protect the Jews (which, without context, amounts to naively suggest that he was some sort of Mr. Schindler in Field Marshal uniform), where it is more than obvious that Kesselring - as the good planner he was (and no one is disputing this) - quickly realized the political situation in Italy and in particular in Rome, also due to the presence of the Vatican (which was an active - maybe the most active at the time - hub of diplomacy in Europe), and concluded that taking hold of the Jews gave him a political asset he couldn't spend were they given away, besides the obvious fact that the Jews were the slave labor force more readily available in the area, and he needed as much as possible slave labor force, given the magnitude of the logistical challenges he was facing.
 * Kesselring was no politician and rarely grasped the political situation. He remained confident that Italy would remain in the war on the German side long after Hitler and OKW were convinced that it would not. His belief that the Italian people would laud him is remains the most ludicrous example. His need for labour was obvious but not so great as he claimed; nor was the transportation situation as quite as critical as he protested. (And why was the rest of the local Italian civilian population not available as a slave labour force?) I kind of like your wording here. I will add a few more words. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that saying that Kesselring always claimed to be not a politician would be more fair and accurate. In fact, he was a very close associate of the politician nr. 2 of the Nazi regime, Hermann Göring, as well as one of the very few top Generals who had direct access to nr. 1, the Führer; furthermore he was de facto the top commander in Italy, having even the SS head for the sector, Karl Wolff, under him.
 * Kesselring constant claim as a witness and as a defendant before the Courts after the war that he constantly was "only after his own business" may be understandable under his point of view, but are far from being the universally accepted historical version, and with reason, since he not only issued orders with force of Law and administered Justice in Italy, but also had to adjust the German position in relation to the Vatican and Mussolini's puppet government almost daily, by way of the German diplomacy, of course, but having the final word on almost any matter.
 * Therefore, he was for sure in strict contact with the top politicians of his Country (inspiring even in his own Germany clearly political decisions such as the catastrophic and inhumane evacuation of the civilian population of the Saar region), and was called to act politically in essence at least since he replaced Rommel.
 * That said, we might evaluate - or not - if he was or not a good politician as much as he was a good military planner and General, but cannot exclude he acted politically simply because he said so. And he assumed a clearly political role, even if not a parliamentary one, as soon as he was freed: besides, in his own memories he affirms it was his intention to help his Country out the rut, which given the circumstances had to refer to some sort of political engagement.
 * Back to your question: Rome citizens were more hostile to the German occupation than in other parts of Italy. Recently released records by the Allies counterintelligence show that no other city in Italy like Rome was so resilient to both the calls to enlist in the newly formed Fascist Republican armed forces or with the Todt and the like to go working in the German war industry. The two calls were in competition, and new puppet Fascist Regime opposed almost constantly - albeit with scarce success - forcing the Italians as a labor force, calling for the creation of Fascist Republican Army instead. The puppet fascist regime, of course, did not care as well of the fate of Italian Jews, so their usage as a labor force would be the less inconvenient choice for Kesselring, also given that Rome's Jew community happened to be bigger one in Italy, thus it was the "more readily available" as I had stated above. And what I said shows how Kesselring was called to choices which were political in essence (even taking apart the relationship with the Vatican just for a moment, and it should be added that the salvaging of Montecassino Library and removable Art pieces was another coup of propaganda which clearly shows how a good politician he was). --Piero Montesacro (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is correct. Perhaps the concept of an "open city" is not widely understood. It simply means that it will not be defended. The city remains occupied and can be used by the occupier. The Allies did not wish to accept this, because Rome was a major transportation hub, and they did not wish to forego the option of bombing it - which is fair enough. Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with declaring a city open unilaterally - as General MacArthur did in Manilla in 1942.
 * Context, again, context. I understand the concept of "open city" and you too, I'm sure. But we are here talking to the rest of the world here, thus we got to get rid of any misconception connected to such concept, including demystify the idea that unilateral declarations of "open city" had more effect and significance than they actually had, and clarify their importance as propaganda tools.
 * Anyway, the Allies always held that the concept of "open city" included the effective demilitarization of the city - i.e. it could be not used as logistical hub for the army - and not only that there should be not armed opposition towards the entry of the enemy army in the city.
 * The relevant fact, i.e. what has actually happened, and what come into effect, is that Kesselring declared Rome "war zone" since January, 22nd, 1944, and so it remained till the arrive of Clark's Army. Why—oh, Why? the article makes no mention of this? Sounds too bad for an apology?
 * The Allies wanted much more than that. They felt that the city remained a valid military target so long as government and industry remained in the city.
 * Kesselring's declaration of a war zone followed the Allied landing at Anzio, when he expected that the Allies would be entering the city momentarily. This did not alter the city's "undefended" status. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As above: the "open city" declarations were - at most - tools of propaganda. Formally, the city's "undefended" status was never recognized by any party - except the proponent - and, substantially, was never implemented - except on June 4th, 1944, the day Clark's Army entered the city at its southern end, while strong parties of German snipers sent south that morning across the Tiber bridges (for the first time in daylight) were holding back several Allied motorized columns in order to protect the German retreat under course from the northern end of the city.
 * Fact is that the city was never actually "undefended" till the very moment the Germans decided to abandon it - yes - (almost) without fighting. Besides, as you correctly pointed out, the city was proclaimed to be "war zone" - which blatantly exposes the concurrent "open city" legend for what it was - in consequence of the Anzio landing, just a couple dozen miles south of Rome. Every night and for the entire period of the occupation Rome was crossed by German columns replenishing both the front at Anzio and Cassino (in order to avoid daylight precision bombardments). These columns were attacked almost every night by partisans, as testified, among others, even by Erich Priebke, and reported by several sources, including the well known Robert Katz's monography about the Nazi occupation of Rome. Furthermore, the vehicles were usually parked in the most central squares of the historical parts of the city during the day, in the hope that the Allied fighters would not strafe them to avoid the accuse of destroying important monuments. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is correct. Ill health was the stated reason for his release.
 * And yes, WWI was started just because of Gavrilo Princip!
 * So much for context and historiography!
 * I understand that you can appreciate - and even admire - Kesselring's military skills, and it wouldn't hurt me if you privately shared the same views Joseph McCarthy had about pardoning and rehabilitating Nazi war criminals for the sake of anti-communism at the height of the Cold War, but it's a fact that Kesselring was not so ill to need quick release if he survived another eight years, as well as it's a fact that he was released precisely in the middle of a massive political and press campaign aimed at pardoning and rehabilitating Nazi war criminals in general, in Germany and elsewhere. And it's a hard fact as well that he rallied many Nazi around him and never repented, bringing his loyalty to Adolf Hitler's and the Nazi regime till his last day, 1960. Again, something too much inconvenient - although perfectly true - to be written in an article apology, isn't? --Piero Montesacro (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The extra text you added resolves this. NB: I have never advocated the pardoning of war criminals. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OT
Problem is this: war criminals were among Russian, Yugoslav, German, Italian and all others chiefs of armies but only criminals of defeated armies were punished, when non murdered in mass killing by criminals of winner armies. Joseph Stalin, Josip Broz and a lot of European communist partisans were more criminals than nazis but they were unpunished because winner criminals!--PIO (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the Talk page about Albert Kesselring. General discussions and rants about other subjects, as well as personal opinions about the "winner justice" concept, do not belong here, sorry. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Montesacro, my comment is pertinent Kesselring and punishers who were non neutral persons but figures of winner nations after WW2. A personal opinion total out of point by Italian user KS is readable above: you can advice him non me!!!!--PIO (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with any of us you should go to the users' talks in order to discuss it properly. Again, your opinions about the "winner justice" concept should be posted elsewhere, and certainly not in this particular talk. Please stop ranting here, otherwise I shall report you to an admin. Thank you. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are in error: stop it!!!! I shall report you to an admin too if you insist.--PIO (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed quote
Hawkeye7, could you please be so kind to explain why you removed the quote about Göring and Htiler having clean hands, according to Kesselring? It has a quite authoritative source. Thank you in advance. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. I hope you can help as well with the section about the Battle of England. It needs quite a Help, IMHO. P.P.S. Thanks for fixing my English, which, as you might have noticed, is not my mother tongue. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote comes from the part of his book dealing with the "Night of the Long Knives". Kesselring makes it clear in this passage that he believed Göring at the time, but soon found out otherwise. I didn't want people to read it literally and think that Kesselring was one of those Germans who wilfully refused to acknowledge what was going on. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK about this particular quote. But he actually was one of those Germans who wilfully refused to acknowledge what was going on, and did not change his mind even after the war. I shall provide you some more evidence about. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edward Crasemann
Piero, could you chase up the case of Edward Crasemann for me ? Where the incident with the 26th Panzer Division took place? I think it is important as an example of a war crime committed by the Wehrmacht, rather than the SS and Luftwaffe. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. He was sentenced to 10 years related to the "Padule di Fucecchio" (Marsch of Fucecchio) atrocity, perpetrated on August 23, 1944: 175 civilians, 1 (one) of whom proved to be a partisan, were exterminated. 62 of the victims were women, the younger was 5 months old, the elder was 93. 14 victims were toddler younger than 14. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The entirely baseless Myth of the "I was following orders" defence
Even though Kesselring did not entirely invoke the "I was following order" aka "Nuremberg" defence, it might be worth to mention why such kind of excuse has no base whatsoever, and how it does not stand accurate scrutiny also in the case of Second World War German officers.


 * Myth: "Kesselring followed orders - in the ranks of the German Army, there was no room for rejecting orders".


 * Fact: "Without an unquestioning attitude towards obeying orders, the successful conduct of military operations, the success of a military campaign, and even the survival of a nation would be seriously threatened. Yet, the soldier, and especially the officer, also has a legal obligation to disobey orders that violate the constitution or the law, and has a moral and ethical obligation to disobey orders that are contrary to societal norms. Thus, the soldier's requirement to obey orders is not open-ended,and the oath of loyalty is not an excuse for blind patriotism or blind obedience to orders, the infamous "I was following orders" defense. Even within the German Military tradition, such a defense is not legally permissable, despite its use by the defendants at the Nuremberg war crimes tralis (as well as at other war crimes trials). Article 47 of the 1872 German Military Penal Code, still legally in force, if not unenforced, down to 1945, stated:


 * If execution of an order given in line of duty violates a statute of the penal code, the superior giving the order is alone responsible. However, the subordinate, obeying the order is liable to punishment as an accomplice if ... he knew that the order involved an act the commission of which constituted a civil or military crime or offense.


 * Ironically, even Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, reiterated the essence of Article 47 and refuted the "I was only following orders" defense ina May 28, 1944 article in the Germa newspaper Deutsche Allgemeine. As we shall see later, there is precedence within the Prusso-German military tradition for disobedience to orders.
 * The oath is not an excuse which the soldier can use to justify immoral acts after the fact, as we saw it used by numerous former German military officers during the various war crime trials that followed World War II or by the defendants in the My Lai massacre trial in 1971."

Note: emphasized text is from the original.

Source: Robert B. Kane, Disobedience and Conspiracy in the German Army, 1918-1945, McFarland, 2001, ISBN 0-7864-1104-X, p. 15.

--Piero Montesacro (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced text
I have provisionally removed the following snippets from the article, after they had been unlinked from their previous stated source - which apparently was Kesselring's memories - and passed to be unreferenced, and assumed as the Encyclopedia version of the matter. They can be added again if given due, accurate and punctual reference, of course.


 * The court conceded that the taking of hostages and even the execution of innocent people in reprisals - sanctioned by the US Army's Rules of Land Warfare - could be permissible under the international law of the day. Nonetheless, the court felt that Kesselring had created a climate in which some of his subordinates felt entitled to exceed their orders.
 * International law was subsequently strengthened in this regard.

It may be interesting to note that the trial against Kesselring was held based on the Royal Warrant of June 18 1945, thus is essentially under British Common Military Law, and not under the Charter proposed for Nuremberg Trials. It is - so to speak - unlikely that British Common Military Law in itself relied upon US Army's Rules, and that the International law was strengthened expressly based on Kesselring' trial. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is common in English speaking countries for laws of one country to be cited in court cases in another. In any case, the British Army also permitted the taking of hostages.
 * The second statement is an error on my part. The taking of hostages was expressly prohibited by Article 3 the Geneva Convention of 1949. All I meant to say was that international law was subsequently changed in this regard. I didn't mean to imply that it was as specifically a result of the Kesselring case or that Kesselring claimed otherwise. Perhaps words to this effect could be added after "The court left open the theoretical and abstract question on the legality of killing of innocent persons as a reprisal." But the article seems to read fine as it is.

In turn removed this snippet:
 * "A close friend and associate to Hermann Göring (and, like him, a onetime drug addict), Kesselring never denied or disowned his ruthless conduction of the war, proud as he was, even after the war, for the bombings of the almost undefended Warsaw, the airborne destruction of Rotterdam after the city had surrendered already and the most infamous carpet-bombing on Coventry, and excused himself for any excess routinely calling for the "military necessity."

It's referenced to a TIME magazine article but almost every part is factually incorrect: Kesselring was not a close friend of Göring (the two were not of the same social class); he was not a drug addict (although Göring was); Warsaw was not undefended; the raid on Rotterdam did not occur after the city surrendered; and Kesselring's Luftflotte was not involved in the raid on Coventry. The only part that is accurate is the last phrase. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know the basics of Common law and, in general, I agree about your opinion above. However, what you say can be common but is not granted. Therefore, once a the reference supporting the text had gone, I went here to check the situation and ask for a clarification and a new reference, and this was my actual point here. Which seems to be unnecessary, after all, as I am glad to see that you agreed that the article seems to read fine as it is. Hence, sounds like no further action is needed about the issue.
 * About the info based on TIME magazine. I suspend judgment about the drug issue: I have checked and the source seems to be pretty isolated. Same for Warsaw. As per the other issues, however, it might be your turn in be willing to check again. The Rotterdam Blitz occurred, at most, while the city was in the process of surrendering and, for sure, when it was quite clear that it was hopeless anyway: it might suffice to clarify well that Student was on the ground, and called for the bombing anyway, but failed in calling it off - which is true - while Kesselring was merely at the command of the bombing; the readers will be served with all they need to take their own conclusions, which is our actual aim here. And yes, Kesselring was fully involved in Coventry bombing, by his own frank admission (the same link also includes Kesselring statements about Rotterdam, and Warsaw). No problem on the last phrase, once you agree as you do. Therefore, I think parts of the text you have removed can be saved. I am quite confident that an agreement between us about putting back some parts of the text referenced by TIME and removed. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Moscow Declaration
I can understand why Italy would be specifically mentioned so as to remove doubt about its status. But none of the atrocities cited in the article occurred before October 1943. Is there something missing? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. Please give me some time to provide it. Thank you. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that, by now, I have already added enough information and context within the article to show why it is relevant. It might be added that it was mainly based on such Declaration, drafted by Churchill, that the British planned their trials against the war criminals - being Kesselring the most prominent one - and that it was the same Churchill who forced the commuting of the death sentences to prison and, eventually, the pardon of the culprits, thus dismantling the very policy he had initially promoted, and based on which Kesselring had been dragged before a Court. A similar policy was adopted by Italy: Kesserling was wanted by an Italian Military Tribunal for the Massacre of Roccaraso perpetrated on November 12 1943, in which 173 civilians (including 53 women, 34 toddlers less than 10 years old and 22 elderly people) were killed. The findings were "provisionally archived" (an unlawful procedure) and hidden along with the ones related to 695 enquiries regarding over 2,000 German and Italian criminals, to be rediscovered only in 1994, due to a search related to the Erich Priebke trial. The British War Crime Group in Padua had concluded an inquiry on November 9 1947 on the same Roccaraso massacre, but took no action. References: Donald Bloxham, Genocide on Trial - War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 47 ISBN 0-19-925904-6. Franco Giustolisi, L'Armadio della Vergogna, Nutrimenti Srl, Roma, 2004, ISBN 88-88389-18-0 and Mimmo Franzinelli, Le Stragi Nascoste - L'armadio della vergogna: impunità e rimozione dei crimini di guerra nazifascisti 1943-2001, Mondadori, Milano, 2002, ISBN 88-04-51974-6. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Churchill reassuring Stalin
To Hawkeye7: it would be nice if you could add a reference to support the text according which Churchill "had made it clear to Stalin at the time that executions were not what he had in mind" (which I am sure you can do), and give your opinion, on second thought, about its opportunity. In fact, the Russians did not hesitate to put to death several war criminals in their hands, and the US, until they joined the Churchill stance about liquidating the war criminal issue, did not refrain from executing, for example, General Anton Dostler. But what makes me think twice is also the fact that the British had at least one General tried and executed as a war criminal: it was not a German one though, but the Italian General Nicola Bellomo, who has been rehabilitated since 1966 by Peter Tompkins in his Italy Betrayed. Bellomo had successfully fought against the Germans, beating them and preventing the capture of Bari and was an anti-fascist; Stalin must have been not too amused. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, certainly, I will provide a citation. You are quite right that attitudes towards the death penalty differed between the UK and its American and Soviet allies. I wanted to avoid giving the impression that Churchill had done a back flip.
 * Can you provide the citation for the additional persons at his funeral?
 * I like the bit about Harold Alexander. I must query the bit about "knowing none of the details of the crimes in question". He was, after all, in command at the time the charges were drafted. It seems that German field marshals were not the only ones with memory problems.
 * I was also wondering if "Critical assessment of Kesselring's pardon in Germany" should be merged with "Death penalty commutation, early pardon, and liberation"?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have provided the needed citation about the personalities that were at the funeral.
 * Yes, I seem to share your view: as the quite cynical and (thus) very good politician he was, Churchill probably had in mind to use the Moscow Declaration (mainly) as a lever in order to put pressure over the Nazi's more than he was prepared to put all of them to death indeed. Nevertheless, he actually back flipped, and it's certainly not me to state this, but the sources I cited. Much of course, I also share what you say about amnesia being not only a German illness. As you can see in the previous section of this discussion, I have provided an Italian example, and it might be added to the article.
 * I am not sure about the merging you propose, as it seems to me both relevant and interesting the take the Germans themselves have in particular on the issue. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"von" Kesselring
From some quarter or other there has been a notion in the US that Kesselring was a von (ie nobility, as opposed to the Generalfeldmarschall's actual humble origins). His name was Albert Kesselring. Somehow a mistake appears to have crept in. (History doesn't repeat itself, but historians do.) Why not ask the Generalfeldmarschall himself? or here? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Two things: First, it looks like Albert is correct, but as I don't have copies of the texts you refer to (and my review of them hasn't answered this question) are you certain that is his given name, was it changed when he got older or perhaps that is even his name given in translation into English? It's not unusual for people of that period to "modernize" their names at some point....  Second, given the confusion regarding his first name, it might be sensible to include a bit of text describing the situation in the body of the article. Geeman (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My first thought was that Albert was an Anglicised form. So when English became problematic I turned to German sources, which confirm Albert. So I now know that he was using Albert during WWII. So it looks like the reverse is the case: that Albrecht is a Germanised form.
 * I'll add an explanatory note once I am certain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I send an email to Dr von Lingen, and received the following reply:
 * "Albert" ist the right form, "Albrecht" is another name. Unfortunately, in english sources you find a lot of misspellings, due to the haste at registration time and the high number of prisoners. You may also come across "Albrecht von Kesselring" which is completely wrong.
 * Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical Assessment of Kesselring
Whoever wrote this section has used references to embolden their original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. For example, if an article on Kesselring includes him saving art treasures and such, you just can't add sentences saying how they left off X and Y and Z, and then use a decidedly negative tone, as if that was included in the article when it obviously was not. Please, no OR, and reference passages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.66.81.18 (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was sort of expecting an allegation of POV rather than OR. The passage at the end that you objected to was originally lifted from the German Wikipedia; in turn it came from a review of von Lingen's book. This was before I began work on expanding the article. We decided to just leave it as it was, to provide a German POV. It should be easy enough to footnote from the book, but it isn't out in English yet. So I have to either read it in German or wait a few more months.
 * Also, if you could provide a reference backing up your claim that Kesselring was ordered (by Hitler?) to use Jewish slave labour, that would be nice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As accurately explained by Hawkeye7, the removed text went straight from de.wiki and was added here to provide a German POV about a German General. AFAIK, translating articles from another Wiki (and an usually well reputed one as the German Wiki) isn't prohibited, neither should grant immediate removal and/or POV/OR accusations. I believe the unsigned user should have, at most, requested a citation. What is emboldened exactly? Anyways, maybe this review (in German sorry) might be used both as a reference and as a source for amending the text (which I'm going to put back online), should it be advisable. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that the article about Anthony Eden does include well referenced information about the process of political revision which is also the matter of the passage, and they happen to be coherent with our article. I have also reverted the other edits by the unsigned anonymous contributor, explaining why in the editline. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I added fact tags for the two passages regarding the criticism, because they are unsourced. I think this is a fair compromise instead of removing them completely or letting them remain as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.66.81.18 (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say they are actually unsourced. The source appears to be fairly clearly stated in the opening of the relevant section. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree- a source won't say that they suppressed material in the very source that is quoted- that's the whole problem- until this "suppressed" section is sourced (unless the paper said "we suppressed this material"), it remains dubious and unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.214.66 (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're being confused by the universal translator. Zu Gute gehalten wurde ihm vor allem die Sicherung von Kunstschätzen und die Deklaration Roms zur „Offenen Stadt“. Verdrängt wurde die Auslöschung ganzer italienischer Dörfer, einschließlich Frauen, Kindern und Greisen, die auf den „Bandenbefehl“ vom 17. Juni 1944 hin begangen wurden. Verdrängt means "displaces, ousts, or supplants". Perhaps a better word would be "repressed" or "ignored". Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Hawkeye7 is right. It actually means that [the German public] suppressed (or ignored) [the whole concept] of the extermination of whole Italian villages, including women, children, and elders, which had been done based on his "bandenbefehl" of 17 June, 1944. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The wartime generation did not want to talk, and the post-war generation did not want to know. Von Lingen writes about this very process - the way that the actions of the government and media in Germany gave Kesselring and others a free pass. This remained the situation in Germany until recently, when a new generation of German historians began tackling the war. The quality of the work that they have been doing - particularly the folks at Potsdam working on the Germany and the Second World War series - has been extraordinarily high. The death of information in the meantime allowed some myths to spring up. The article notes the "myth that the Wehrmacht had "clean hands", and most if not all atrocities had been carried out by the SS and the Einsatzgruppen". This myth was not restricted to Germany; English-language histories contributed. The new generation of German historians has thoroughly debunked this, and then moved on to a related myth that all this happened on the Russian front. This has resulted in more attention being paid to Italy as a good counter-example. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bolzano-Bozen
Piero, you're putting fact tags on your own stuff. At present, our Kesselring article seems to be contradicting History of Alto Adige-South Tyrol. Can you tell me if the people of South Tyrol voluntarily joined Nazi Germany, or if it was merely annexed, as per the other article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What is about Kesselring "saving" Rome...
...by deliberately not withdrawing his troops through the city of Rome and therfore avoiding another Monte Cassino? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.89.100 (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No source to back up war crime claim

 * See also Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II

"''a war crime under Section 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907, which forbid "all seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science".'"

This is a selective quotation and OR. For a start it is not section 56 it is article 56, and it is in an article in a section entitled "Section III, Military authority over the territory of the hostile state", It is not about the attacking of property still under the control of the enemy. If we are doing OR then we need to look at "Section II Hostilities: Chapter I Means of Injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and bombardments", article 27 (my emphasis) In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

I am removing the claim that it war a war crime. It is a highly controversial position to take as the majority of experts do not consider it to be a war crime, and if the statement is to be made then the most authoritative source should be named in the text of the article "John Doe has claimed that ...," and if a specific refutation has taken place it should continue "However Jane Doe disagrees and claims ..."

I am very disappointed that such a blatant piece of WP:OR from a primary source, would not be noticed by the editors working to make this a GA article. --PBS (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No objection here. However, I do think your opinion of the GA process, and myself, is excessively harsh. I think it was only necessary for you to point out the discrepancy without needlessly and snobishly making us volunteers look like dirt. For this reason I would ask that you take a look at Civility.


 * Wikipedia does need to clarify why it is not considered a war crime by most, but that belongs on the Battle of Monte Cassino article. I would like to suggest that the section currently titled "War crimes" be split into a section on the preservation of art treasures and a section on the war crimes (beginning with the OSS paragraph).&mdash;RJH (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done this. The new section has been given the same title as that of the corresponding section in the English translation of Kesselring's book. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Monte Cassino
From the history of the article:
 * 20:00, 10 August 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (fix double negative)
 * 22:40, 10 August 2009 Hawkeye7 (Undid revision 307226084 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) No, this is incorrect)

The original wording: "Ultimately this was unsuccessful, because the Allies believed the monastery was used to direct the German artillery against their lines. As the morning of 15 February 1944,..."

my change: "Ultimately this was unsuccessful, as the Allies never believed the monastery would not be used to direct the German artillery against their lines. On the morning...

I tried to make the smallest change possible, and there lots of sources which state that the Allies believed that the Germans were in the monastery (eg this one). So what is it that is incorrect that is currently correct in the sentence? It seems to me that it was a divisive issue in the Allied high command with by and large the British (Commonwealth/Empire) supporting the bombing and the Americans against it. -- PBS (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The monastery was not being used by the Germans before it was bombed. Nor did the Allies believe that the monastery was being so used. General Freyberg, the New Zealand commander, believed that the monastery would be so used. His argument was that if the monastery were not bombed, then the Germans could move in at any time if the Allied attack looked like succeeded. On this point, the American commanders disagreed with their British Commonwealth counterparts, as you point out. So the correct positive version is something like:
 * "Ultimately this was unsuccessful because the Allies believed the monastery would be used to direct the German artillery against their lines. As the morning of 15 February 1944,..."

You could replace "the Allies" with "some Allied commanders" if you want to emphasise the point that not all agreed with this assessment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding work!
After being away from the Wikipedia editing "business" for a long while due to deployment, I must say that the work you have put into this article, Hawkeye7, has been very impressive. Congratulations on the promotion to feature article, and I hope that in the future its position as FA can be sustained! Monsieur dl  mon talk-mon contribs 03:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article
I suppose some might object to a Nazi military leader being portrayed as having so many good qualities. But for me, reading about Kesselring's life is a reminder of how sad it is that the state has sucked so many of the most talented individuals into careers where they serve as the enemies of human rights rather than the friends of it. There are many highly competent people of this type who, in Thoreau's words, "as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God." Most people just seem to go with the flow and, if they are inclined to work in the field of government or the military, will do so, regardless of the ethics of the political leadership. Tisane (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

His adoptive son
I just read through this article because it was featured and noticed something. The name of his adoptive son is given as "Ranier" which would be a really unusual name. Could this possibly be a typo and meant to be "Rainer" instead (which is a much more common name)? The German wikipedia does not mention the adoptive son's name so I could not verify that. Any thoughts? --Feuerrabe (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How many vehicles?
"...40,000 men, but also 96,605 vehicles..." Each man would have had to drive more than 2 vehicles! Wouldn't the number be something like 10,000? Still impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.122.34.10 (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well spotted.

Aaagh. It was vandalism. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion
Where is the archived discussion? Did someone delete it? TwoBitSpecialist 17:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the box at the top of the page that says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements..." yada yada. Down the bottom of that box, it says: "Archives: 1" Click on the "1". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Kesselring's book
Sorry for my english. There are two Kesselring's books in "Bibliography":  Gedanken zum Zweiten Weltkrieg and A Soldier's Record. But most of the references indicates Kesselring's book The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring. This is it?--Totalserg (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the same book. They changed the title for the 1988 edition, which has a preface by Kenneth Macksey. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring Add "Popular Culture References similar to Rommel
Keenly interested in the "Culture Refereences to military leaders whether Genneral Joseph Stilwell in the film 1941 (film) or Albert Kesselring in the film Which Way to the Front?.

Would like to sart an Albert Kesslering in Popular Culture section with this information

Kesselring and Kesselring's double were portrayed by Jerry Lewis in the 1970 movie "Which Way to the Front?." This film focused in a fictional manner Kesselring's command tenure in Italy. While Kesselring has been prortrayed in seconadry roles by second string actors in movies such as "Anzio" and the "Battle of Britain", the movie "Which Way to the Front?" is the only known movie to have Kesselring portrayed by someone in a leading and staring role.

ProSanta0001 (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I and Hawkeye have said in edit summaries on the main article, anything in a Featured Article requires reliable sources, which YouTube and IMDB weren't last time I looked. I realise many famous people have pop culture sections in their articles, but they're not universally approved of by the community, certainly not when at FA-Class like this one.  In any case, if we were to include portrayals of Kesselring in pop culture, I think the focus should be on serious ones like in Battle of Britain, even it wasn't by a major star. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

German language ranks
This is a good article but it typically uses ranks in German with the occasional English translation. Since these ranks are not in common English usage (like Gestapo or Luftwaffe) and also the English equivalents are not intuitive (i.e. generallmajor translates to brigadier and generalleutnant translates to major general) I am proposing to Anglicize the ranks (with appropriate translation and links at first instance of the word). This will make the article more understandable and easier to read for the non-specialist reader. I also think it is more in line with MOS:FOREIGN. I'll leave it for a day or two to see if anyone has a problem with this. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have several problems with it. First of all, the article is not a good article, it is a featured article, and has been through the FAC process. The article has appeared on the front page and has been subjected to extensive review. Changes should not be made without a broad consensus. Secondly, your translation is poor; generallmajor was definitely not the same as brigadier and Comparative officer ranks of World War II. This was all discussed before. If people want to know, then they can click on the links, and it will be explained in detail. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye, I accept your arguments about peer review. However, may I make the following points:
 * 1) May I refer you to Comparative officer ranks of World War II? This clearly states that generalleutnant is equivalent to major general and generalmajor is equivalent to brigadier general even if literal translation of the words might suggest otherwise (and is confirmed in the equivalent article in the German language Wikipedia). Indeed, in this article itself (In the "Between the wars" section) the text reads "Generalmajor" (brigadier-general), "Generalleutnant (major-general)" and "General der Flieger (air lieutenant-general)" so there's nothing "poor" with my translation.
 * 2) FAs are not set in stone. The box on the talk page clearly states that "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so". There is a long history of GAs and FAs being improved (or downgraded) as Wikipedia standards are raised over time.
 * 3)My suggestion was that having an article peppered with foreign language ranks is confusing to the non-expert english language native speaker and is contrary to MOS:FOREIGN which states that "Foreign words should be used sparingly". My proposal to rectify this was therefore to anglicize all the ranks using the British English equivalents (rather than literal translations of the words). This would reverse the current situation: instead of having say "Generalmajor (brigadier-general)" on the first instance of the rank and then using "Generalmajor" on all subsequent instances, we would have "Brigadier-General (Generalmajor" at the first instance and then "Brigadier-General" on subsequent instances. This makes it more understandable to the general reader and follows a well established convention often used in English language books (for instance Dear and Foot's "Oxford Companion to World War II" always uses the English equivalent).
 * 4)Clearly, if there is a consensus established contrary to this proposal I would accept it (which is why I opened this section on the talk page in the first place). I would be most interested to see any previous discussions surrounding this ("This was all discussed before").
 * Thanks for your input. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 10:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) ) This is not the same thing. Moreover, the "equivalence" is very misleading. In the UK, a brigadier commanded a brigade an a major general a division; in the US Army, a colonel commanded a regiment (the equivalent of a British brigade), a brigadier general was deputy division commander (something they did not have in the British or German armies) and a major general commanded a division; in the German Army an oberst (colonel) commanded a regiment while a generalmajor commanded a division.
 * 2) ) This would not be an improvement. We would sacrifice accuracy and get nothing in return.
 * 3) ) No, that is terrible. Instead of one foreign rank that readers may not understand, you now have two. For the readers in my country are wholly unfamiliar with the foreign rank of brigadier general.
 * 4) ) I am following the US and Australian official histories in using German ranks for the Germans. The consensus that we have was reached during the FAC. I was not entirely happy; I would have used the German ranks only. I had to read two books in German to write the article; the readers can learn a few words while reading. They are here to learn after all.

No, honestly, don't hold back, tell us what you really think!! Maybe I'm misreading Antipodean directness for rudeness but rather than assert what rubbish my proposal is (WP:OWN?), wouldn't it be more polite and productive to direct me to where the debate took place that established the current consensus - I have already said I would accept an established consensus? The only evidence of a debate I can find is this exchange in the FAC:"I am going to apply WP:Bold here and change all instances of lieutenant colonel and above to the german corresponding rank. I previously changed all field marshal ranks in German field marshals articles to generalfeldmarschall Gsmgm (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Good! I'm quite happy with that. There was a bit of debate earlier as to whether using German would make the article harder for the general reade to follow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)"

Frankly, it was a friendly proposal which I thought had merit but was prepared to be persuaded, I didn't expect a "Daddy knows best" response. Who needs aggro? There's plenty of other things to do in Wikipedia, so I'm off to do just that. G'bye. P.S. Don't bother responding to this, it's just too wearing. P.P.S. Your assertion as to what rank commands what unit/formation is overly dogmatic; there are endless exceptions (because the German army at the time, unlike Commonwealth armies, did not as a rule assign acting ranks in line with postings, the officer normally carried his substantive rank (although inevitably there were exceptions here too): for instance looking at the OOB of Army Group C in 1943, all the Corps commanders were General der .... and about half the divisional commanders were generalleutnant and half generalmajor. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 18:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Couple of observations
This article has just been mentioned indirectly on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history‎, so I thought I'd have a read. Interesting life. However, two things spring to mind. One is note 4, which apparently caps off a paragraph and is apparently used as a reference. Surely direct reference to the contents of The National Archives' holdings, unsupported by secondary sources, is original research?

The second point is the very last sentence of the article: "To his ageing troops, Kesselring remained a commander to be commemorated." This to my mind implies that all of Kesselring's surviving soldiers-in-arms commemorate him, rather than a number of veterans representing but two veterans' groups. It strikes me as cloyingly sentimental, and entirely the wrong note to end an otherwise excellent article. FWIW. &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, primary sources are acceptable so long as they are only being used for facts. As for the second point, the implication is correct; the reference for Kesselring extends beyond just two groups. Von Lingen: "As far as Kesselring's surviving troops are concerned&mdash;and thanks partly to British intervention&mdash;their former commander's reputation remains unsullied." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Numbers of prisoners in Tunisia
If you do a check yourself at Wikipedia, you will see that my information makes the article more complete. The Albert Kesselring information in WW2 is reffering to all theaters and not only to 1943. Stalingrad for example takes place in 1942 and 1943, so we can make the comparision between an even bigger disaster like Operation Bagration is (see Wikipedia page) in 1944. Point is that your vision (Hawkeye) is to narrow. For sources, I provide gladly the next sources in which you will see that your view is incomplete, you mention the Ruhr Pocket that also comes second to Bagration in numbers of prisoners. At Sandhurst, Beevor thought us to compare and use our sources (of course not Wikipedia because of matters like these).

When you compare Stalingrad in an article about the colapse in Tunesia, you also should speak about the biggest defeat, it makes no sense to speak about the one that comes second (Stalingrad). Or, you don't compare at all, an incomplete comparision makes no sense. It is the one or the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad — Preceding unsigned comment added by History and skiwatch (talk • contribs) 06:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It was only supposed to mean that it would have looked like a greater disaster if it were not overshadowed by Stalingrad, which occurred around the same time. The source does not refer to 1944 or 45 at all. So I have removed the reference to Stalingrad to avoid giving the impression that either was the second biggest disaster. Say hi to Anthony for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Third-party sources needed
The article contains 17 citations to the subject's memoirs, including peacock language such as "greatly increased" and "succeeded". I will tag the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has passed FAC. I will remove. Provide sources yourself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will have a look for something on the German logistics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem of Kesselring's birthday
I have seen several acceptably reliable sources including [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=wm_YDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA936&dq=%22kesselring%22#v=onepage&q=%22kesselring%22&f=false Zabecki ed. (2014)] and Whitlock (2009) state that Kesselring was born on 20 November 1885. Meanwhile, the article here shows that his real birthdate was 30 November. As there are two different given birthdates and both confirmed by reliable sources, can we make it clear that the date 30 November is more correct than 20 November? Personally I think he belonged to the Sagittarius sign because of his optimistic appearance, but it needs to be checked.222.255.197.66 (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been."Some references erroneously give his birth date as 20 November. However, Kesselring testified under oath that it was 30 November 1885, the date in his Army personnel file." Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So how did the previous editors of the article get information from his Army personnel file, especially his birthdate? I have read the book of Macksey, but here he did not indicate that the birthdate was taken from Kesselring's Army personnel file at all.222.255.195.92 (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Kirsten von Lingen obtained it, and I was in contact with her. I also found it in the Nuremberg transcripts. I can't remember whose book got it wrong; it may have been Macksey. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information! However, while I coud not find Kesselring's birthday in Lingen's book Kesselring's Last Battle, the book of Macksey which is being used as citation for Notes 2 of this article did not show his Army personnel file at all. Therefore, how can we add citation or evidence in order to strengthen the points shown in Notes 2?222.255.193.65 (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Nazi article!
The article is an apology for Kesselring and the Nazi War Machine, based on biased sources, and insufficient analysis. The whole thing of "British Military Common Law" is unheard of in jurisprudence, and the claim of illegality of the British trial is unfounded. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Do you have a reliable source for your assertion that the trials were on a solid legal basis? We can add it to the article, Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albert Kesselring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521025214/http://www.its-arolsen.org/en/news/news-2012/index.html?expand=7587&cHash=4f7a9abc8df30aea113dbbc58a9c689b to http://www.its-arolsen.org/en/news/news-2012/index.html?expand=7587&cHash=4f7a9abc8df30aea113dbbc58a9c689b
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205182410/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/kesselring.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/kesselring.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert Kesselring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819185432/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/03-13-46.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/03-13-46.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Featured article review
This article frankly does not meet the 2018 standards for FAs. As K.e.coffman pointed out above, the non-neutral language ("one of Nazi Germany's most skilful commanders") in the lede, and excessive citations from Kesselring's memoirs are unacceptable for a FA. I would put this up for featured article review myself, but I already have two articles under review. If the issues are not addressed, I'll be back to nominate this article later when the reviews I'm involved in finish up. Of course, if anyone else would like to nominate it for FAR, I would be happy to advise. Catrìona (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Other Generalfeldmarschalls
Who where the other Generalfeldmarschalls who published their memoirs? Shouldn't a note be made of these? Skjoldbro (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If you'd aske3d on Quiz Night I would have said Keitel and Manstein without blinking. Now we'll have to dig up a source.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"dangerous situation"
I modified the sentence here:, as it was making it sound that Kesselring was personally in danger, or that the German troops were in a "dangerous situation" which sounds a bit odd in a time of war. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FTR, I certainly read it as the latter, and I don't think it sounds that odd in context, but it is somewhat editorialising so I have no objection to its removal as further detail appears in the following sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Feb 2019 edit
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "C/e; ol; rm pov material from the subject's memoirs and undue praise; mv nicknames out of the lead as not discussed in the body". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I already did, while "Reverted - take it to the talk page" is insufficiently specific. What changes do you object to? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Tweaking the wording is not acceptable. The wording has been carefully reviewed, and your proposed changes do not provide improvement. Changing infobox military person to infobox criminal is naked POV-pushing and is unacceptable. Removing the nicknames, which are sourced, is further POV-pushing. Important quotations and links were removed. Your proposed changes are rejected. Seek consensus for any changes you propose.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Tweaking the wording is not acceptable" -- huh? Changing to "Infobox criminal" with "Infobox military person" module is not POV pushing, as it results in no noticeable change in the military aspect of the infobox, but allows to add relevant fields to fully reflect the subject's career: Sample. The article was "carefully reviewed" back in 2009; new sources and perspective have come to light since then. Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * What new sources?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a new source (Blood), which was removed: . In another example, the article is using a 1954 source to claim that the subject's "memoirs formed a valuable resource...". The article also continues to rely heavily on Kesselring's memoirs themselves, which I attempted to address here:, about
 * "forging alliances with industrialists and aviation engineers";
 * "[striving] to provide the best possible close air support";
 * "the burden of preventing the Allied evacuation of Dunkirk";
 * being "well aware that while this force was large enough..."
 * "Although his command was already 'written off'..."
 * "Kesselring felt that much more could have been accomplished if he had..."
 * and so on. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me help you. The main new scholarship has been a thorough German-Italian assessment of Italian citizens killed in anti-partisan fighting. That such a survey could be carried out is encouraging, but it still highlighted sensitivities. The final figure was higher than most previous estimates, bur still only a fraction of the number of civilians killed by Allied bombing. I had been meaning to incorporate this into the article. Turning to the points above:
 * "forging alliances with industrialists and aviation engineers". The issue here is the complicity of German industrialists with the Nazi regime. Obviously, you cannot build aircraft without the cooperation of aircraft manufacturers, so I didn't think it needed another source, but it is a sensitive issue in your country, so we can locate an additional source.
 * "the burden of preventing the Allied evacuation of Dunkirk" (You wrote:"It left to prevent") I hadn't thought this was controversial; the controversial bit is in the next clause: "hampered by poor flying weather and staunch opposition". I'm always skeptical of claims of defeat based on externalities like weather. We'll have another look.
 * "Although his command was already written off". This is critical to the reader's understanding of the situation. The Germans had decided to withdraw from southern Italy. Kesselring had a mobile force and authorisation to conduct a fighting withdrawal; but he seizes an opportunity to go on the offensive. This is another part that could be sensitive in your country. But we can source easily enough."
 * "Higher SS and Police Leader". You have mistranslated here. Wolff was not a Higher SS and Police Leader" (Höherer SS- und Polizeiführer), he was a Highest SS and Police Leader (Höchster SS- und Polizeiführer), a status shared only with Prützmann in Ukraine. Yet another issue that could be sensitive in your country.
 * "Kesselring felt that" Obviously Kesselring is the only source we can have about his own thought; but it goes to the conflict over strategy between Kesselring and Rommel.
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm puzzled here--you use the singular in the condescending "Let me help you", and then the plural in the equally condescending "We'll have another look" (not just condescending--odd too; who's your partner?). While the grammatical number differs, these comments, indeed many of your comments here, share that condescending quality. I wish, I think we all wish, that you would drop that. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

That was not the point I was trying to make. These are the examples of parts of the articles reading like a Lost Cause of the Confederacy treatise. That being said, --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) are there objections to this version of the infobox?
 * 2) why is there a reason to cite a 1954 source on Kesselring's memoirs? Is this the best source available?
 * 3) why was Blood's Hitler's Bandit Hunters source removed ?
 * We've been through changing the infoboxes before on Edmund Herring. Military figures use the military person infobox. If you want to change that infobox to add additional fields you should seek consensus in the appropriate forum. Note that the ArbCom Infoboxes case applies here.
 * I don't know what 1954 source you are referring to.
 * Blood was removed because the book was not used after the edit was reverted. This was because of multiple problems, including grammar, reference formatting and the use of an abbreviation that is not commonly known. I have restored a substantial part of the edit, with reference formatting corrected.
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What on earth is wrong with "forging alliances with industrialists and aviation engineers" or "Kesselring believed that first-hand knowledge of all aspects of aviation was crucial to being able to command airmen, although he was well aware that latecomers like himself did not impress the old pioneers or the young aviators"? Bizarre. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see follow-on discussion here: User_talk:Hawkeye7#Albert Kesselring. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How does that answer the question above? (“Nominally”, I’d submit.) Qwirkle (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "the article lacks neutrality in certain areas, through uncritical use of primary sources and a one-sided presentation". --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But these do not seem to be the areas that lack neutrality or depend on uncritical use of primary sources. You are answering a particular question with a generality, which is seldom a good sign. Qwirkle (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is nothing in those sentence fragments that lends itself to that description. What specifically is wrong with them? Are they clearly incorrect? Do you have a reliable source that contradicts them? What "other side" needs to be presented? How, for example, can another side be presented regarding Kesselring's beliefs as expressed by him? It's illogical. And if you are having a discussion here, how about keeping it here instead of fragmenting it onto a user talk page and asking people to go there to follow it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
According to the template page, infobox criminal is "rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." Kesselring's notability is primarily due to: his rank (one of only three Luftwaffe Generalfeldmarschall's); award of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds; and the various high-level commands he held, particularly Commander-in-Chief South, but not for the Ardeatine massacre. If you want to use infobox criminal in this article, get consensus for it via a RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no difference in how the infobox renders to the reader apart from the addition of several fields, such as
 * Known for:	Ardeatine massacre
 * Criminal charge:	War crimes
 * Penalty:	Death penalty (commuted; released in 1953)
 * Sample. Compare with this version. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Which is to say, it is inaccurate, as was already addressed above. Kesselring isn’t “known for” any one particular incident or type of incident in the way that, say Willy Sutton is. Qwirkle (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My two cents, I would consider there is a difference in the appearance of the infobox, due to the relative placement of those additional fields immediately below the image/dob/dod fields. This shouldn't be construed as trying minimise war crimes, but as PM points out, Kesselring's notability is largely from his military rank and high commands, not the Ardeatine massacre. The layout of the proposed infobox would suggest otherwise. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with PM. Kesselring is know for things other than one massacre. To reconfigure the infobox is to give undue weight. Intothatdarkness 18:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Intothatdarkness, yeah, only one massacre. How many massacres does one have to commit, pray tell? Or, do you have any idea how callous this sounds? Drmies (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion deals with adding a particular tag in an infobox, not your particular threshold for something. Do you have any idea how pretentious you sound? Seems the question has been resolved in any case, so your late comment isn't really contributing anything to the discussion. Intothatdarkness 21:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also agree with PM as Kesselring was most known for his command in Italy. Kges1901 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Kesselring's role in war crimes is well known; there are two books written about Kesselring's trial and his crimes, such as Kesselring's Last Battle: War Crimes Trials and Cold War Politics, 1945-1960 and Anatomy of Perjury: Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, Via Rasella, and the GINNY Mission. The article makes use of both but in a somewhat curious fashion. For example, the GINNY reprisal is described as follows:


 * Read: the American servicemen were murdered, but Kesselring had nothing to do with it. One does not even need to read the book since the linked article (Operations Ginny I and II) details Kesselring's role in the crime. His Knight's Cross is listed in the infobox along with various battles, while his criminal status is not.


 * In such situations, the combined infobox criminal and infobox military person makes sense. Perhaps the relevant fields should be added to "Infobox military person" as war crimes and resulting criminal prosecutions were sadly a common occurrence in the timeframe in question. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say that. Raiber had a theory that Kesselring ordered the killing of the American OSS men, but he died before he could come up with real proof, and his book is a posthumously published unfinished work. I included the incident in the article as an example of a well-documented war crime to head off any "clean hands" ideas I detailed one atrocity committed by each service. The Operations Ginny I and II article is largely unreferenced. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not how a review of Raiber's book puts it:


 * Source. At the very least, this is a significant theory and should have not been omitted, as directly pertaining to the subject of the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a bit off-track of the infobox discussion, and seems to be about inclusion of information in the body. It certainly doesn't make him more notable as a criminal than he was as a military person. As far as infobox military person is concerned, if you want to suggest additional fields be added to it, Template Talk:Infobox military person is that way, and if you want to change the guidance on infobox criminal, I suggest you raise that at Template talk:Infobox criminal. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since PM67 now also started a thread at Template Talk:Infobox military person I am not sure where to comment. In general I think convictions because of war crimes should be part of an infobox military person, regardless of how that would be best engineered. The infobox already not only provides the most well known information, e.g. his command in Italy, but also informs about his earlier service as to present a more complete picture of his career. I do not see why a conviction for war crimes would not be an important part of that career. After the war Kesselring was, besides Manstein, one of the most well known prisoners serving a sentence for war crimes, at the time more prominent than Speer.--Assayer (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Speer on became well-known because of his book, published after he was released. His cellmate Rudolf Hess was certainly better known before then (and is still better-known today). Manstein is similar; he is better known than Kesselring today because of his book. Although Kesselring also wrote a book, it doesn't seem to have had the same impact. However, while Mainstein is more popular on Wikipedia, Google ngrams tells me that Kesselring was much better known in the 1940s, and until the 1980s. The best-known German WWII military figure convicted of war crimes by far though was Karl Dönitz.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to exclude notable criminal convictions from an infobox, and the "known for" terminology should not be a major stumbling block. It's a simple matter to embed a Criminal module within the Military Person template (see Bill Cosby) or vice versa. –dlthewave ☎ 18:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not "start a thread" at Template Talk:Infobox military person, I left a notice pointing to this discussion. That is how it is done so that editors discuss things centrally. I also posted a notice at the infobox criminal talk page and at a couple of relevant WikiProjects. But you found your way here, so it must have worked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal
I propose the following layout, which embeds a small portion of the Criminal infobox within the Military Person infobox –dlthewave ☎ 19:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I could live with the nesting of an infobox criminal module within and at the bottom of infobox military person. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * That seems to be an acceptable compromise.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree, the placement of the additional fields is an improvement on the original proposal. Zawed (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Any reason why the criminal charge parameter is used rather than the conviction parameter? Factotem (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, both parameters should be available.--Assayer (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I based it on the parameters in this version, but I have no objection to changing it to conviction. –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * De nieuwe generaal-veldmaarschalken van de Luftwaffe.jpg

"Storm of protest"
The article says that the death verdict unleashed a "storm of protest" in the UK. Is that in a source, or is it the editor's characterization? Why is there no mention of the Italian reaction to the verdict, or to the "storm of protest in Italy" (von Lingen, p. 238) when he was released? Kablammo (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Added this.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Poland
The section describes a Western-type military commander. But he was oblidged to be cruel (Hitler: "Größte Härte..." ) and the Luftwaffe bombed civilians of Warsaw, which should be mentioned. The Jewish quarter was bombed on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Gutman finds the connection probable. The Jews of Warsaw, 1939-1943: Ghetto, Underground, Revolt
 * Kessselring indoctrinated or allowed to indoctrinate his soldiers The Indoctrination of the Wehrmacht: Nazi Ideology and the War Crimes of the German Military.Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.amazon.de/Gr%C3%B6%C3%9Fte-H%C3%A4rte-Verbrechen-Wehrmacht-Ausstellungskatalog/dp/3938400072 Xx236 (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That book doesn't mention Kesselring at all.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is ignored here and Italy has a section Actions affecting population and cultural objects. It's typical Western POV, dehumanization of Eastern Europeans, firs by the Nazis, later by Western historians and now by biased Wikipedia editors.Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason is that I do not have any books on the air campaign in Poland, and so relied on Kesselring's account. I have one paper on the development of close air support in the campaign. The two-month campaign only warrants a paragraph or two, but can you recommend another source?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I see point about UNDUE, or rather, about the Polish section being rather too short, but nothing jumps to mind. Perhaps } would be a good to consult, currently it is not even in the bibliography? That said, I don't see that it has an extensive discussion of Poland. Polish Wikipedia has no useful sources in the article, so I am afraid that's all I have after few minutes of searching. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have that book. (And his PhD thesis too.) Von Lingen is still the best source on Kesselring, but her book is not a full-blown biography. (Although no one is better qualified to write one.) I have nothing tying Kesselring to indoctrination, and he isn't mentioned in the book cited above. The Holy Grail for me would be something tying him to SS activities in Belorussia. The closest thing I've found is a paper on Göring's plan to turn part of north-eastern Poland into a private Nazi hunting forest.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Did Kesselring order his pilots to respect international law? They bombed Warsaw hospitals, so the Poles removed banners from roofs.http://www.polska-zbrojna.pl/home/articleshow/26213?t=Zbrodnie-Luftwaffe-w-kampanii-1939-rokuXx236 (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did, and this has more to do with the limitations of airpower, and the accuracy of bombing. I will rework the section. On re-reading Kesselring's account, I was struck by his praise of the performance of the Polish Air Force.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Germans themselves documented their cruelty in propaganda documentary Feuertaufe, 1940. https://archive.org/details/1940-FeuertaufeXx236 (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt about this. In the aftermath, Kesselring established bases in occupied Poland.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm late to this one, but if there is an issue with the German air campaign Poland I can assist with sources. Dapi89 (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Heavy bombers and bombing
The persistence of authors, academic or otherwise, in making the case that Kesselring didn't support building a strategic bombing capability is contradicted by experts in air power affairs and the primary sources they use. Kesselring was in favour, and it suited his view of air power, which was to be used as ruthlessly as he felt necessary. James Corum and Williamson Murray began covering this over 35 years ago. Dapi89 (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * finally found the passage that demonstrates Kesselring had nothing to do with the cancellation of the Ural bomber project either. Dapi89 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverts
You seem to have reverted me twice while using edit summaries that referred only to unrelated changes made in the same edits: which reverted, and  which reverted  and part of. Could you please clarify whether or not this was accidental? (If so, I’d also be curious to know it was able to happen given that in both cases, there were intervening edits that were left untouched.) Sunrise (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Featured articles are required to be grammatically correct.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * ...Okay, I see that one part of my edits contained an arguable grammatical error, which could benefit from a minor rewording. Did you have any other objections? I also don't think that grammar is a possible reason for the removal without comment of a clarification tag. Sunrise (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I restored the tag which was removed here:, without discussion nor improvements to the article. The areas for improvement were noted in the Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1 earlier this year, which have not been addressed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion at FAR. All issues were addressed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * the link provided by Coffman on the edit summary shows the majority support Hawkeye7's reply. Dapi89 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The FAR was closed as "Delist", indicating that the NPOV issues were not resolved. –dlthewave ☎ 21:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The FAR delist overrode the consensus and had nothing whatsoever to do with the state of the article.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is true. I would like to see a constructive approach from all parties, going forward. MPS1992 (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I restored the tag; my rationale was: "local consensus on the page does not override conclusion/delisting @ Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1". The FAR closing statement was:
 * Closing comments so here we are at 6 months in and there is still a POV tag at the top of the article. We alos have multiple editors still not apply [happy?] with it. Hence there is no consensus to keep the article. I am sorry about this as alot of work has gone into it. Hence
 * Further to Dapi89, please refrain from including insults in your edit summaries, as was done here: . --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The only reason I left the tag there was because the FAR had not been closed. I have removed it.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a fact, not an insult coffmann, as you well know. Dapi89 (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The tag is purely to notify editors of an ongoing discussion. It must be removed if there is no ongoing discussion, and there isn't one. The outcome of the FAR has nothing to do with it. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  18:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was self-evident that there were still neutrality concerns given the delisting. See for example:
 * Featured_article_review/Albert_Kesselring/archive1
 * Featured_article_review/Albert_Kesselring/archive1
 * Featured_article_review/Albert_Kesselring/archive1
 * Much of the content that's been objected to during FAR is still in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These were addressed, and the discussion was closed. Once the discussion was closed, the tag had to be removed. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was delisted because issues were identified during FAR that had not been corrected. To described it as "all issues were addressed" and that the discussion was simply "closed" is not how things went down. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean, but the discussion ended months ago. You got what you wanted; the article was delisted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect, as my intention has always been to improve the article. It saddens me that it's come to such accusations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Some concerns
I notice that the article is at GAn again. I'm not expert on the subject so I won't do the review myself but there are two concerns I have that I feel should be dealt with before it becomes GA again.
 * In the area of aerial doctrine, Kesselring has been described as a "worthy successor" to Wever. This is a WP:WEASEL problem. If this is James Corum's opinion, it should be directly attributed in text.


 * Removed  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The following comes from Note 5: The nickname "Smiling Albert" was bestowed on Kesselring by the Allies. It is not used by German writers. It was used during the war. In 1941, newspapers referred to him as "the keep smiling general".[153] By the time of the Tunisian campaign, American news sources were referring to him as "Smiling Albert".[154] This practice was well established by the time of the Italian campaign. See, for example "Up the Boot". Time. 19 April 1944. Retrieved 14 April 2020. All of these citations are to newspaper articles at the time, which serve as primary sources. This is a likely WP:SYNTH violation.

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not a WP:SYNTH violation. The article is simply citing instances of the use of the term.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "The nickname "Smiling Albert" was bestowed on Kesselring by the Allies. It is not used by German writers." This statement needs verification by a secondary source. To find several examples of the term in Allied country newspapers and then reach that conclusion is original research. It also says "In 1941, newspapers referred to him as "the keep smiling general" and that is cited to a single Australian newspaper. The only correct conclusion one could reach should be "In 1941, the Cairns Post referred to him as "the keep smiling general." Expanding that claim to "newspapers" generally is an extrapolation. The next statement, "By the time of the Tunisian campaign, American news sources were referring to him as "Smiling Albert"." is sourced to a single Australian reprint of a Time magazine article. How can we use this to claim "American news sources"? All we can verify is that "By the time of the Tunisian campaign, Time referred to him as "Smiling Albert". To be precise, the article doesn't quite call him that in its own voice, it says "He is nicknamed Smiling Albert" but doesn't attribute that moniker. Finally, the last part of the note says This practice was well established by the time of the Italian campaign and then gives a single example. How are mere Wikipedia editors able to judge whether a practice is "well established" based off our own survey of newspaper archives? That's textbook original research and synth. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The sentence had a reference to a secondary source that notes that the nickname was bestowed on Kesselring by the Allies. (von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 16.) I have added that to note 5 as well. The Cairns Post article is reprinting an article from The New York Times. That makes two newspapers. I have tweaked the wording  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok my concerns are addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * James Corum does indeed refer to him as "a worthy successor". It is not WP:WEASEL. Dapi89 (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I restored the tag which was removed here:, without discussion nor improvements to the article. The areas for improvement were noted in the Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1 earlier this year, which have not been addressed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion at FAR. All issues were addressed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * the link provided by Coffman on the edit summary shows the majority support Hawkeye7's reply. Dapi89 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The FAR was closed as "Delist", indicating that the NPOV issues were not resolved. –dlthewave ☎ 21:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The FAR delist overrode the consensus and had nothing whatsoever to do with the state of the article.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is true. I would like to see a constructive approach from all parties, going forward. MPS1992 (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I restored the tag; my rationale was: "local consensus on the page does not override conclusion/delisting @ Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1". The FAR closing statement was:
 * Closing comments so here we are at 6 months in and there is still a POV tag at the top of the article. We alos have multiple editors still not apply [happy?] with it. Hence there is no consensus to keep the article. I am sorry about this as alot of work has gone into it. Hence
 * Further to Dapi89, please refrain from including insults in your edit summaries, as was done here: . --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The only reason I left the tag there was because the FAR had not been closed. I have removed it.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a fact, not an insult coffmann, as you well know. Dapi89 (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The tag is purely to notify editors of an ongoing discussion. It must be removed if there is no ongoing discussion, and there isn't one. The outcome of the FAR has nothing to do with it. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  18:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was self-evident that there were still neutrality concerns given the delisting. See for example:
 * Featured_article_review/Albert_Kesselring/archive1
 * Featured_article_review/Albert_Kesselring/archive1
 * Featured_article_review/Albert_Kesselring/archive1
 * Much of the content that's been objected to during FAR is still in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These were addressed, and the discussion was closed. Once the discussion was closed, the tag had to be removed. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was delisted because issues were identified during FAR that had not been corrected. To described it as "all issues were addressed" and that the discussion was simply "closed" is not how things went down. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean, but the discussion ended months ago. You got what you wanted; the article was delisted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect, as my intention has always been to improve the article. It saddens me that it's come to such accusations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually think that given this relates to the quality of the article and the GAR, and this is currently at GAN again, it should remain on the talk page for now, so have reverted the archiving. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

World Wars
I am not a grammar nazi (no pun intended) but I tripped a little on the capitalisation for World Wars in the lead. The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS 8.113: World War I, Vietnam War, the war, the two world wars) suggests lower case should be preferred, but it is something of a hybrid, so it is one of those things more in the gray than black and white.  Kangaresearch  15:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ De-capitalised.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the extensive work you have put into the article, by the way. I am sure it is, and will be, appreciated by many.  Kangaresearch   06:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Referencing style
Is there a reason this article doesn't use links between its footnotes and its references? That is, why doesn't it use sfn to link references to the material that provides them? Instead, it uses a raw reference, like  which results in plain text, unlinked to the "Alexander" book in the bibliography. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's old. The sfn template was not created in 2009, but the first footnotes were added to the article in 2007. By the time I started overhauling the article in 2007, the older harvnb template was available, but the article already had footnotes in the long form, so I continued using the format that was in the article at that time, per WP:CITEVAR and a 2006 ArbCom ruling: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)