Talk:Colonel general

Untitled

 * Article: de:Generaloberst
 * Corresponding English-language article: none, perhaps place at Colonel-General?
 * Worth doing because: It's the next rank below Generalfeldmarschall in the WWII German military hierarchy, and the German article looks comprehensive
 * Originally Requested by: Ellsworth 17:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Status: Translation done -- Jmabel | Talk 08:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Other notes: It's possible that some of the names -- especially the Austrian names -- could use further work to match the "correct" forms under which articles might exist. Also, I've made a couple of commented-out notes in the article on some major missing information about Austria. Basically, the dates for which this rank was used in Austria are unclear; so is whether the Austrian list is complete. Obviously, lists for Germany in other than the Wehrmacht era could be added. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:49, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Untitled 2
"Generaloberst mit dem Rang eines Generalfeldmarschalls": correct might be: "Generaloberst im Rang eines Generalfeldmarschalls"


 * Every source I have, including original German publications from the Second World War, list the title of Colonel General with Field Marshall rank as Generaloberst mit dem Rang eines Generalfeldmarschalls -Husnock 4 Jan 2004
 * Sounds right to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:38, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think that General-Colonel (with or without the hyphen) is preferable for the following reasons: the lower ranks Lieutenant General and Major General are, respectively, three- and two-star ranks in most Western armies but in the Soviet military General-Lieutenant (SIC) and General-Major are two-and one-star ranks and thus all ranks which do not carry the same number of stars as Major/Lieutenant/Colonel General should, IMHO, be written in the order General-Colonel/Lieutenant/MajorGwgoldb (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

acknowledging sources
The following was removed by Mikkalai. I restored it. He removed it again. "This article draws heavily on the corresponding article in the German-language Wikipedia." I'm not going to have an edit war over this, but I think the removal is absolutely wrong. The German and Austrian material here came almost entirely from my translation of material from the German-language Wikipedia. I have no other source to cite for it. If they have made errors, then I have necessarily replicated their errors, and they don't cite sources for their material (or at least they didn't at the time I translated). This is exactly why one cites sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

List needed
I invite someone to move out all the names from htis article into a seperate list. I feel they are really cluttering up the article. Opinions? -Husnock 09:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Austrian colonel-generals
It says now in the article: Colonel General (Generaloberst) was also the second-highest rank in the Austrian Army, although it was not used between 1915 and 1918. It's my understanding that it was exactly the opposite: the rank of Generaloberst was introduced in 1915 following the German model. -62.183.251.50 08:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Lost in Translation?
I am not entirely happy with Generaloberst being translated as Colonel-General. The logic of this seems to come from the fact that a colonel in german is "Oberst" a word in german that is also an adjective meaning utmost or superior. The title Oberst is therefore an appropriate derrivation as a noun to apply to the leader of a regiment. Generaloberst is best translated as "Senior General" and (given the time for citation) has been used in other Enlglish language historical articles when refering to those who held the rank. Breakfast in French is "petit-dejeuner" but we don't refer to eating "little lunch" when breakfasting in Paris and, that said, I'm not even sure if colonel-general works as a literal translation as the "oberst" changes meaning in a subtle sense - e.g. saying "colonel general" would be as bad as tranlating "Air Chief Marshal" into language X to appear to a speaker of X as "Air Head of Tribe Marshal" if you get my drift. I am not sure how this relates to the armies of Russia or any other country mentioned but I suspect the same principle would apply. Dainamo 00:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Literal translation is "General Colonel". "Colonel General" is used by nearly every professional rank comparison guide I've ever seen.  Documents at the Nuremburg trials also list the Generaloberst defendents as having the rank of "Colonel General" and some German officers from World War II, who were interviewed in later life (and who knew English) would call themselves Colonel General.  So, as it is an accepted translation by sources used in the article, not to mention many others, changing it to a different translation would not be supported. -00:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of the above. Thank you for your insight Dainamo 00:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right, Dainamo. "Generaloberst" in the German original rather means something like "the top general" - after all, that's the root of the word "oberst" too: the superlative form of "ober" (upper). I think a more correct translation would be something like your "Senior General" or maybe "Superior General".
 * Unfortunately, the anonymous poster is also right. Apparently the first english speakers who had to translate this rank (at Nuremberg, maybe?) made the mistake of calling it "Colonel General", which seems logical when you have Lieutenant Gen. and Major Gen., but is never the less incorrect. Anyway, the error stands, and that's the internationally accepted term. --dllu 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, after six years, translating "Generaloberst" with "Supreme General" or something similar is gramatically wrong. That would be "Oberster General" in German, as the adjective has to stand before the noun, not after. "General-Colonel" or "Colonel General" is the literally and functionally correct translation. -- megA (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that the adjective also proceeds the noun in English, yet there are exceptions such as Attourney General and President Elect etc.. Curously the rank of General is itself a contraction of Captain General in which general was the adjective rather than the noun.  I take your point though that Supreme General would not work if we were going for a perfect translation but it is closer than Colonel General.  Having said all that, Colonel General, it appears, is doubtlessly acceptable through general use in the same way in English in the same way the English language has invented the word Sultana (the wife of a Sultan which is not used in places where they have a Sultan!) and it is further compunded by the fact that other countries like Russia have transposed the rank as Colonel General in their own language. Dainamo (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

First time at doing this so please give me a break. I think people are attacking this the wrong way - there are several ways to prove this. Firstly, "Oberst" means highest (or similar). By itself the highest rank below a general or combined as the highest general (below a Generalfeldmarschall). The second proof is to look at the units commanded by various ranks and compare them to the US Army rank structure (in brackets). Generalmajor/Brigade (Brigadier General-1 star); Generalleutnant/Division (Major General-2 stars); General/Corps (Lieutenant General-3 stars); Generaloberst/Army (General-4 stars). The size of unit commanded by these ranks holds true in most cases, except late in the war. The final proof is to look at the dual ranks of Waffen-SS generals. Remember Gruppe/Gruppen means Division/s, and Fuhrer means leader. A Brigadefuhrer (Brigade Leader or Brigadier General) had the equivalent of Generalmajor; Gruppenfuhrer (Division Leader or Major General) was equal to a Generalleutnant; Obergruppenfuhrer (Above Division Leader/Lieutenant General) equalled a General; and a Oberstgruppenfuhrer (Highest Division Leader/General) equalled a Generaloberst. Imagine the British and Americans didn't speak the same language and you had to transpose. A Brigadier and a Brigadier-General both command a Brigade, so are equivalent ranks. Same goes for Commodore and Rear-Admiral (lower half). What would it matter if the Germans renamed a Generalleutnant "Elmer Fudd"? Elmer would still command a Division, so would still translate as Major-General. Aspie aussie (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL good argument except you are conusing equivalence with translation. By the same argument you might also translate Generalfeldmashall into American English as General of the Armies (five star general), but Field Marshal is always used instead. Dainamo (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect data
"(...) because it occupies the position normally designated Lieutenant General in Western armies (Colonel General (three stars) is one position higher than Lieutenant General (two stars)"

That's just not true - It's normally designated full general. I'm not really a wikipedian, so I'll leave the edit to somebody that knows how to edit it appropriately. There is a rank for Lt. Gen. - "генерал-лейтенант", the one in question is the one in command of the army, not corps.

Full General?!
The rank is also closely associated with Germany, where Generaloberst has been the full General and a rank below Generalfeldmarschall. ^ That quota is actually entirely incorrect. A General in the german Army was a full general by all means.

Generaloberst im Range eines Generalfeldmarschalls ^ To say something here - according to my knowledge that had also something to do with payment/salary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_%28Germany%29 ^that sums it up nicely for the generalobersten im range eines generalfeldmarschall

Russian "colonel general"
There are some problems with the Russian "colonel general" section.


 * 1) The traditional translation of генерал-полковник as "colonel general" leaves a lot to be desired (as per the German discussion above), but this not made clear in the text.
 * 2) The section states that "The rank of colonel general did not exist in Imperial Russia", but Russian Wikipedia says that it was introduced in 1852 (генерал-полковник article) or used from the time of Peter the Great (Генерал-лейтенант article), depending on which article you read.
 * 3) None of this is helped by the confusion in Wikipedia over the comparative ranks of Russian army officers - does a colonel general rank with a 4-star general per Comparative officer ranks of World War II or a 3-star OF-8 lieutenant general per Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation? The fact he wears 3 stars doesn't mean he is the same as a US 3-star lieutenant general - after all, a full Russian general only wears one star!

Shem (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, the problem with comparative ranks ain't serious at all, because Russians got the same number of supreme officer positions as the British and Americans - five. Here is the comparison:

Though Russian MRF is unused in peacetime exactly as American GA. Lex4570 (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Revert explained
For an explanation of my revert to this article, see User talk:94.221.58.197. Shem (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto User talk:92.72.224.185. Shem (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)