Talk:Erich Hoepner

Hoepner's presence at Bendlerblock
It doesn't make sense! Hoepner couldn't have been present at the Bendlerblock that night of 20th July 1944, otherwise he would've been shot on the spot. It wasn't in Fromm's best interest to let somebody survive because they knew about his passive involvment. --89.177.43.141 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erich Hoepner. 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/20060915115201/http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/22.09.2004/1359752.asp to http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/22.09.2004/1359752.asp

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) 17:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

CE
Did a long CE then got an edit conflict so apols. RV as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorted out a few sfn errors.Keith-264 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Front
I did a partial revert of the new material; I kept "Early life" and up to the Army Group North. I also kept the new material on Hoepner's role in the 20 July plot. I'm preserving the material here by providing this link.

The concerns are primarily about the tone and sources in the Barbarossa section. I would not use Mitcham for the operational matters on the Eastern Front or for his interpretations of the general's thinking. More on that below. David Stahel's excellent work is only cited twice, although he covers Hoepner and Panzer Group 4 in some detail:. My reading of these sources suggests a different picture from what was added to the article, i.e. the nature of Kluge-Hoepner disputes or that the entire Panzer Group 4 reached within 20 km of Moscow, as the lead seemed to imply. It likely was strung out by a hundred kilometres; see Stahel's lecture on YouTube that explains the general situation of the German advance:. The second citation to Stahel appears to have the wrong page, as p. 326 does not contain the material being cited to it.

Circumstances around Hoepner's retreat order is more nuanced than what's presented: Richard J. Evans writes that Hoepner requested permission from Kluge, who advised that he'd discuss with Hilter and "ordered Hoepner to prepare for immediate retreat". Assuming that Hitler's permission was on the way and not wanting to risk the matter any longer, Hoepner ordered his troops to withdraw. When Kluge found out, he was "appalled and terrified at what Hilter might think" and immediately reported Hoepner, causing Hitler's fury. 

On Mitcham: He received a pretty scathing review for another work on the Eastern front, The German Defeat in the East, 1944-1945; excerpt from the Journal of Slavic Military Studies:
 * It is no longer possible to write an acceptable history of the Eastern Front which relies solely upon German sources or obsolete interpretations from the Cold War era. (...) [The book] is of no use to specialists [and should] be avoided by non-specialists. (I can provide the review to anyone interested.)

Some other changes, i.e. to the lead and body, were unjustified, in my view, such as taking out the quote to Hoepner's order from 2 May 1941. This order is widely cited in the literature on Barbarossa and definitely belongs in the article. Another minor, point was the decorative icons in the infobox; please see MOS:ICONDECORATION. Listing the entire awards section in the infobox is not the common practice either, as infoboxes are generally reserved for the highest awards. I restored the prior awards section.

I have Stahel on hand, so I'll look for additional material to add to the article in the next week or so. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I made further revisions; pls see diff.


 * Amber Books looks to be a small-time, militaria publisher, and Mann seems to be retelling what's in Sydnor anyway.
 * Zabecki p. 615 is a brief entry on Hoepner; it does not discuss “700 Soviet tanks” or “within 11 km to Leningrad”:
 * I searched for [hoepner 700 tanks] and [4th Panzer Group 700 tanks] but have not found anything immediately apparent. I revised to match the source and replaced "700 tanks" with a general citation about Army Group North from Glantz. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit
I've elaborated on the changes to the article immediately above. I was not able to confirm some of the materials previously present in the article (700 tanks, etc).

I have questions about some of the recent edits: diff. For example, the quote from Hoepner's order was removed with the edit summary: "Totally lacking a reference. Page number needed...". The reference was indeed provided for Hoepner's quote, including a page number:
 * ...Every military action must be guided in planning and execution by an iron will to exterminate the enemy mercilessly and totally. In particular, no adherents of the present Russian-Bolshevik system are to be spared.

For context, please see: Crimes of State Past and Present: Government-Sponsored Atrocities and and International Legal Responses edited by David M. Crowe: Same in Burleigh who is cited in the article, but from a different book The Third Reich: A New History: A number of other sources make the same connection between the plans for the war of extermination and Hoepner's directive: I'm not sure what the objection is.
 * "On 30 March 1941, Hitler told his senior military commanders that he "wanted to see the impending war against the Soviet Union (...) as a war of extermination (...). Many Wehrmacht leaders...." Hoepner's quote follows.
 * "These [pre-Barbarossa] orders fed down the chain by senior commanding officers several of whom unreflectively elided Jews with Bolshevism. Thus, on 2 May 1941, General Erich Hoepner..." His quote follows.
 * "Many field commanders immediately echoed this in their own preinvasion directives. General Hoepner (...) advised his troops... In Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe by Mark Mazower.
 * "Another general who justified the coming was on the same grounds as Hitler was General Erich Hoepner..." The same quote follows. In The Policies of Genocide edited by Gerhard Hirschfeld. Etc.

The following edit summary likewise lacks clarity: "No biographical notability asserted. What's the immediate relationship?". The material removed was:
 * The staff and detachments 2 and 3 of Einsatzgruppe A, one of the mobile killing squads following the Wehrmacht into the occupied Soviet Union, were brought up to the Luga district with assistance from the army. "The movement of Einsatzgruppe A—which the army intended to use in Leningrad—was effected in agreement with Panzer Group 4 and at their express wish," noted Franz Walter Stahlecker, the commander of Einsatzgruppe A. Stahlecker described Wehrmacht's cooperation as "generally very good," and "in certain cases, as for example, with Panzer Group 4 under the command of General Hoepner, extremely close, one might say even warm." (emphasis mine).

The immediate relationship was the close cooperation between Panzer Group 4 and Einsatzgruppe A. I'm not sure what "biographical notability" is, but this material is certainly relevant to Hoepner's bio. This objection reminds me of the discussion at Talk:Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb, which I could not understand there either. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * All of which is fine as there isn't any real debate on the nature of the war in the east as propagandized by the regime. What all the provided references fail to provide is an actual tie between the assertion made in the article and Hoepner himself. To connect that many dots is synthesis on your part. To include the aforementioned sections requires reliable sources actually making that assertion. To simply lump in Hoepner with broad brush is not biographically relevant nor appropriate for Wikipedia. The discussion of on-the-ground cooperation between individuals of the Einsatzgruppe assigned to the same area of operations of Panzer Group 4 and individual elements of that Group fails to make a substantive biographical connection. Also, von Leeb is something I'm going to get back around to, when I have time. Both articles fail on the same merits. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I understand how this material is not biographically relevant nor appropriate for Wikipedia. Hoepner commanded PG 4, did he not? In the EG A material, he is mentioned by name. Please also help me understand why the Hoepner May 1941 quote was removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Commissar order
Since there's been no response, I restored the changes with some revisions and additions; please see diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns.

Separately, as there have been a number of attempts (1; 2; 3) to remove mentions of PG 4's implementation of the Commissar Order, here are sources that I added to the article:
 * "The Commissar Order was executed with particular diligence at Hoepner's Panzergruppe"
 * "172 commissars had been executed by July 19" [by Panzer Group 4]

They provide details and specific dates / numbers. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead
I reverted changes to the lead that were introduced in this edit, as the previous version better summarises the body of the article. Also, the content is problematic; sample: Hoepner did not command PG 3, to the best of my knowledge. "...within sights of the Kremlin..." is not discussed in the body of the article. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ...During Operation Barbarossa Hoepner commanded the 3rd and 4th Panzer Groups. While in command of the 4th Panzer Group, Hoepner's troops came within sight of the Kremlin during Operation Typhoon...

Ravensbrück sentence
"His wife, daughter, son, sister and brother were sent to Ravensbrück concentration camp." Cannot be correct, this camp was for women; please revise per RS source. Kierzek (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out; I made the revision with this edit. Sources: Family Punishment in Nazi Germany: Sippenhaft, Terror and Myth by Robert Loeffel (already in use in the article) & Ravensbruck: Life and Death in Hitler's Concentration Camp for Women'' by Sarah Helm. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hoepner's activities prior to transfer to AG Centre
Recent edits have created large holes in Hoepner's activities prior to his transfer to the Moscow front. Additionally, the context for his movement on the Eastern Front have been removed. Why? Justifications on the Talk page seem lacking. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The information that was added by in this edit, ostensibly cited to Zabecki, failed verification:
 * Pushing east from positions in East Prussia Hoepner split his forces and met oncoming Russian armored forces at the Battle of Raseiniai, where the Germans first encountered the Soviet KV heavy tank. Despite the superior Soviet tanks and numbers Hoepner's 4th Panzer Group destroyed over 700 Soviet tanks, nearly the entirety of the Northwestern Front's armored forces, and advanced across the Daugava river. Hoepner advocated for an aggressive attack on Soviet positions in Leningrad and led his forces to within 11 kilometers of Leningrad before being halted by Soviet forces.


 * Here's Zabecki p. 615: it's a brief entry on Hoepner ; it does not discuss “700 Soviet tanks” or “within 11 km to Leningrad”. That's either OR, with citation appended after the fact, or misrepresentation of the source. I've removed this content, but will look in other sources for the early Barbarossa phase / advance on Leningrad. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This paragraph has also failed verification, as Stahel p. 326 does not contain this content:
 * Hitler then ordered a siege of the city, transferring Hoepner and his units to Army Group Center to assist in Operation Typhoon, the German plan to take Moscow. The slow progress toward Leningrad made by Army Group North left Hoepner frustrated and fed into his serious doubts about the viability of the coming offensive toward Moscow so late in the year. He was consoled by Albert Kesselring, an old friend of his, and was eventually convinced the plan would work.


 * It's unclear where "...frustrated..." and "...serious doubts..." came from, as it was not in Stahel. But, as I said, I will look elsewhere. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are some additions diff. I will look for more info on Aug - Sept operations. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added more material here: . K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Rank consistency
I suggest that the German ranks be consistent within the article. There is lieutenant, General of the Cavalry and Generalmajor at present. The lack of equivalence between the US or British Major General and the German Generalmajor (the same applies to Generalleutnant) mitigates against anglicising German ranks, so I suggest rendering them all in the German with US (or British) equivalents in parentheses after them. This has been common practice in the past on en WP. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. My preference is to go with what the underlying articles are named. They are, for example, General of the Cavalry (Germany) and Generalmajor. I did, however, pipe "Generalmajor" to Generalmajor to be more specific. Hope this works. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 edit
This edit summary did not make much sense to me: "opinion not fact, there are much older and better references". First, that's an opinion by a notable historian, so I find it to be WP:DUE. Second, "much older" does not necessarily mean "much better" references. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * did stahel invent this sentence or did he get it from somewhere? if he invented it its unscientific. if he got it from somewhere it should be referenced. it is very ok for a book, which needs to tell a story captivating, needs to be sold. but such text, placed out of context into an ecyclopaedia, is excessive, unnecessary, and not neutral. WP:SPECULATION. to give another example of the strange citation style here. the wikipedia article states "Hoepner and Guderian blamed slow commitment of the south flank of the 4th Army to the attack for the German failure to reach Moscow. Stahel wrote that this assessment grossly overestimated the capabilities of Kluge’s remaining forces." the first idea is to verify what, where and when hoepner and guderian did say this. the reference is missing. then stahels assessment follows, and is referenced. this is not the way citations work. if the article would be discussing stahels book, it would be ok. but it discusses the persons opinions 70 years ago. e.g. hürter, 2007, states it quite factual in comparison, with deep references, pp 296 ff.--ThurnerRupert (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

your recent edit has been challenged. Please self-revert, so that we can discuss. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * am a little unsure now. which protocol are you following? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I was following WP:BRD. Now we can discuss. I'm fairly certain that Stahel did not "invent" it. I have the book on hand and I'd be happy to look stuff up in it. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ah, interesting, good to know. brd. i like it - but these wikipedia persons - writing 10 pages about it as anybody would have the time to read all of that. 10% of the lenght max would be ideal :) back to stahel: the sentence i removed, where did he get it from? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Stahel writes: "The reckless optimism within the OKH was in stark contrast to the dire warnings emerging from the lower ranks, which spoke of deplorable conditions for the men and declining combat readiness. Yes the position of OKH was bolstered by the steadfast determination, and often excessive confidence of men like Hoepner, Reinhardt, Guderian and Kesselring..." etc. Prior to that he quotes Hoepner's correspondence:
 * In a letter home, Hoepner stated that just two weeks of the frozen ground would allow his troops to surround Moscow, not taking into account the stiffening Soviet resistance and the condition of his units.


 * So it's not clear to me that this attributed opinion is controversial or undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Father: "General" Kurt Hoepner ?
Seems that his father was that Kurt Hoepner (1858-1925), a prussian medical officer and (finally) Generaloberarzt (surely not at Erich Hoepner's birth, at age 28). dhm.de also says that his father was a Sanitätsoffizier, medical officer. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Attributing the quote of Hoepner to Michael Burleigh's interpretation
Michael Burleigh writes the order from Hoepner as follows:

"The objective of this battle must be the destruction of present-day Russia and it must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity."

- 2 May 1941

On the German page for Hoepner, historian Förster writes the order as follows (presumably in original German):

"Dieser Kampf muß die Zertrümmerung des heutigen Rußland zum Ziele haben und deshalb mit unerhörter Härte geführt werden."

In what world should "Zerstrümmung" be translated as something other than fragmentation, disintegration or comminution, the smashing or the shattering? Even if Michael Burleigh had gone with the interpretation based on the word zerstrümmern, he would get ''to smash sth. to break sth. to pound to shatter, to break sth. into splinters, to break to smithereens.'' But I am not trying to introduce original research here. The fact is the secondary source which Michael Burleigh quotes is in Ueberschar and Wette (eds), Der deutsche Uberfall auf die Sowjetunion p. 258. This secondary source does not offer the interpretation Burleigh does. Therefore, I would suggest the quote should be changed to the original and correct translation, or the article should say something like "Burleigh writes" or "according to Burleigh", because Burleigh's translation of the quote is not that of a secondary-source scholarly consensus if Förster, cited on this page, does not adopt the same interpretation as Burleigh and the other secondary source contradicts Burleigh's words.--Justforthisthing (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction
"[Hitler] stated that "wanted to see the impending war against the Soviet Union conducted not according to the military principles, but as a war of extermination" against an ideological enemy, whether military or civilian. Many Wehrmacht leaders, including Hoepner, echoed the sentiment."

Hoepner issued an order to his troops instructing them to treat the "loyal population" fairly, adding that "individual acts of sabotage should simply be charged to communists and Jews"

What is going on here? --Justforthisthing (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)