Talk:Franz Halder

Untitled
This article is polemic rather than history. It makes bold assertions about certain viewpoints being « myths » without really analysing them or confronting the possibility that any aspect of the German military during WW2 could be uncontaminated by Hitler. It fits into a simplistic good vs evil view of the world - one that would have no place but for the fact that Wikipedia is not a serious academic platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.129.41 (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I've reverted the edit by 4.242.99.53 since it looks like the text was pasted in from somewhere, though a Google search doesn't show the text online anywhere. If there is evidence this was not a copyright violation, it could be replaced (in a more wikified format). Angela. 19:19, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a copyvio. See . Angela. 04:11, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Who wrote this?
Who wrote this nonsensical article on Halder: Joseph Stalin? Halder was an a thorn in the side of Hitler all along, was fired and sent to Dachau concentration camp for the rest of the WWII. After being liberate by the American troops, he was NEVER charged with any crime (as the Hitlerites were at Nuremberg). He was also involved in plots to assassinate Hitler--one of the reasons he ended up in the Dachau death camp. Later, he-whole heartedly supported and helped the US and Federal German government policies for a free Europe, documenting what went on under Hitler and his command. For that he received the highest civilian medal from US in 1961.

And here, in this unsupervised, brainlessly written article, Halder is presented as "an unpunished evil" man. The only "fault" of him was his unwavering animosity to Communism and Communists, their inhumane and destructive actions and fabrications (which we see here in this article as well). The same goes for Erich von Manstein-the developer of the Blitzkrieg. He was appointed the main general of NATO defences in Central Europe after WWII. These men were NOT Nazis and despised Hitler. They were rewarded by the US and West after WWII. It is a travesty to see nonsensical articles like these on them both in Wikinonsensia
 * Eat the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintceas (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. I reviewed the source material: who verified this statement?
 * ...whom he instructed to remove material detrimental to the image of the German armed forces.... Lauren1453 (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

East Prussia
The statement that the Germans feared interwar Poland would attack East Prussia "to regain this former Polish territory" is egregiously misleading. East Prussia never was a "Polish territory" in the modern understanding of the terminology. Although part of it - a district known to the Germans as Ermeland and the Poles as Warmia - was controlled politically by Poland for two centuries, Ermeland/Warmia was inhabited predominantly by Germans for six centuries, until the Germans were expelled after World War II and East Prussia was split between Poland and the Soviet Union.

The province of East Prussia corresponded roughly to the area inhabited prior to the 13th century by the old Prussians, a "pagan" Baltic people whose language was related to Lithuanian, and who periodically conducted warlike raids into Christian Poland. In 1226, Duke Conrad of Mazovia, the part of Poland immediately south of East Prussia, asked the Papacy to sanction a mission by the Knights of the Teutonic Order to remove the Prussian tribes as a threat.

The Order conquered the Prussians over a period of about 80 years, slaughtering many and forcibly converting the remainder, who eventually became assimilated with German settlers imported by the Order. The northern two-thirds of East Prussia eventually became wholly Germanized, while the southern part, known as Masuria, became inhabited by a mixture of Germans and Poles. This ethnography remained in place until 1945.

With the decline of the Teutonic Order in the 15th Century, followed by its secularization in 1526, East Prussia became politically divided between Poland, which annexed the still-Catholic Ermeland (Warmia), and the now-Protestant duchy of East Prussia, which was enfeoffed to the Polish Crown. After the First Partition of Poland in 1772, however, all of East Prussia became part of Brandenburg-Prussia and thus after 1871 part of Germany. By the time period of the present article on Halder, East Prussia had been a Prusso-German province for 150 years, and had never been wholly a Polish province or inhabited predominantly by Poles.

As a footnote, it may be mentioned that the inhabitants of southern East Prussia, i.e. Masuria, voted 97.8 percent in favor of remaining part of Germany in a League of Nations plebescite in 1920.

PS: What's up with the "NOT Franz Halder" cutline?

Sca 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

agreed, this is clearly POV; I have removed that phrase

Army vs. Armed Forces
It seems there is a confusion here. Was Halder Chief of the General Staff of the Army or of the Armed Forces (comprising Army, Navy and Air Foce)? This distinction is important as it concerns three successive men: Ludwig Beck (1935-1938), Franz Ritter von Halder (1938-1942), and Kurt Zeitzler (1942-1945).


 * All three Army only. Before the formation of OKW - Oberkommando der Wermacht - all three services had their own chiefs of staff. On formation of OKW Keitel was appointed Chef OKW and de facto head of staff, with Hitler as supreme commander and Jodl as Chief of Operations--Anthony.bradbury 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

picture
I removed the picture, since both the caption and the picture page itself say it is Jacob, and not Halder. Perhaps someone can add one? bikeable (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, the last time I looked at the Halder photo was about six months before it was removed. As that photo sure looked like a very similar one that F. Halder sent to me in 1968, I recommend that the photo be re-installed. I don't have any idea as to why it would have been captioned "Jacob". -- Bill Garrison


 * I added a new picture, the previous picture was indeed of General Alfred Jacob.Ingsoc 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Subscript text

Medal of Freedom
I can't find any reference to Halder getting the medal of freedom other than on Wikipedia. Since it is not referenced, I am removing it. Update: Hadler did not receive the Medal of Freedom. He was awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Award which is a civil-service award for being a good worker. From the army's website: "The Meritorious Civilian Service Award is the second highest Department of the Army honorary award, and may be granted by the Secretary of the Army or a major commander. Nominees for this award must have established a pattern of excellence, normally demonstrated by the receipt of lower level awards." - http://cpol.army.mil/library/permiss/5434.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.164.200 (talk • contribs)


 * Good catch. [This Medal of Freedom page ] does not list Halder.  It always struck me as somewhat, ah, incongruous.  bikeable (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source for his getting the Meritorious Civilian Service Award - http://www.kcl.ac.uk/lhcma/info/lec05.shtml

Barbarossa
Halder changed the plan for the invasion of the Soviet Union to focus on taking Moscow, particularly while Hitler was ill in April 1941. (86.183.112.32 (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC))

Change this sentence; After the war, he had a decisive role in the development of the myth of the clean Wehrmacht.

To these sentences; After the war, he had a decisive role in the development of the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. The scorched earth military tactics lead to many millions of civilian deaths, though collateral damage was not said at the time. YappingDogYowling (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

vs. Hitler
I was surprised at the explanation of this edit: The first reference seems from a quite well established publisher. The second maybe less, but apparently a second hand quote that could be verified. could you expand on your reasons for reverting? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The passage is self-contradictory, while the sources are hobbyist in nature and not reliable for these claims. The para opens with "...he felt unable to take direct action against the Führer", but then states "he considered shooting Hitler himself". So which one was it? We also get the trope of "like all officers he had taken a personal loyalty oath to Hitler". The officers made and broke all sorts of oaths. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement (1941)
He, Halder, engaged in a long-running and divisive dispute with Hitler over strategy that damaged the leadership of the army. - So, Halder by his acting "damaged" the leadership of the army, is that what this line wants to suggest ? Otherwise, if Halder had said to himself Führer, befiehl, ich folge dir (und sage gar nichts) (Fuhrer, give your orders and I won't tell anything against) the "leadership of the army" would have remained "intact" ? - Sounds somewhat awkward, that statemant. If one thinks a bit about it. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hitler gave an order, if Halder didn't like it he changed the order. There were arguments between Hitler and the leadership. The orders given were bad because of the continual disagreements. Hitler got more aggrieved up until the point he took control himself and sidelined the command. It could probably be reworded. Szzuk (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. The matter is covered in the article body clearly so no need for that. Szzuk (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Halder "only German to be decorated both by Hitler and US president"
This article on Franz Halder states he was "the only German ever to be decorated both by Hitler and by an American president," (receiving the US Meritorious Civilian Service Award from Major General Edgar C. Doleman). Is this correct? For example Doctor Wernher von Braun received both the Nazi German War Merit Cross and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal. While it could be argued that Braun was a US citizen by the time he received his US decoration, the statement concerning Halder is still misleading. Any views? Hsq7278 10:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Statement misleading for sure, should be easy to find someone (lower level Wehrmacht, later Nato / Bundeswehr) who was decorated by Hitler and a President as well --2003:E4:719:8D00:20C3:AAB1:FBF7:B74C (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hitler may not have personally conferred those awards, as he did with Halder.50.111.3.59 (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Which Meritorious Civilian Service Award did he receive? Presumably the Army award, as the King's College link provided above shows him as being "Head, Historical Liaison Group, Historical Division, US Army, 1948-1961" and the medal was presented by a general, but can the specific award be verified? 216.255.165.198 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Two myths
We write: "The first is that Hitler alone was responsible for the military blunders during the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hitler demonstrated on numerous occasions he was too susceptible to the psychological pressure applied by self-centred individuals like Halder, Hermann Göring and Heinz Guderian. They were more interested in furthering their own interests than that of the war effort." This reads to me like we are saying that in the first of these two myths created by Hadler:


 * 1) Hitler was responsible for the military blunders on the eastern front
 * 2) Hitler was susceptible to psychological pressure applied by self-centered individuals more concerned in furthering their own interests than supporting the war effort
 * 3) Examples of these self-centered individuals include Göring, Gunderian, and Hadler himself.

It doesn't make much sense in the context that Hadler would promote a contrary-to-fact myth that has him as a self-centered saboteur of war strategy. My guess is we are passing from describing the myth to criticizing it and back, but the transition is too casual for the uneducated reader to notice.

Also, what's the source for the criticism?

--causa sui (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * your are correct; this was somewhat confusing. I shortened the related para to remove the details. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV violation and factual errors in section "Invasion of the Soviet Union"
The section "Invasion of the Soviet Union" contains editorializing language, directly attributing fault to Halder: "Halder's first major fault was ..." and "Halder's second major fault was ...". This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

Second, the same paragraph distorts the contents of the cited source, David Stahel's "Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East." Stahel never says: "Halder did not believe in Hitler's plan; he preferred his own. Thereafter he undermined and sabotaged it." Rather, Stahel quotes an ambiguous passage from the post-war memoirs of Nicolaus von Below that states "there could be other orders that might be systematically sabotaged." The "other orders" is in distinction to the Commissar Order, regarding which Stahel says von Below "overstated the opposition in the army". Below then goes on to state: "Thus we embarked upon a truly massive offensive with a disjointed leadership and with leaders pulling in different directions."

Thus, the paragraph as currently written violates WP:NPOV and incorrectly describes its source material. I propose it be rewritten as follows:

"In August 1940 Halder began planning Operation Barbarossa, the anticipated invasion of the Soviet Union. Shortly thereafter, to curtail Halder's military command power, Hitler limited his involvement in the war by restricting him to developing operational plans only for the Eastern Front.[12] Historian David Stahel criticized the General Staff under Halder for failing to prepare the German military for the hazards awaiting them in the east and faulted Halder for not openly discussing his disagreements with Hitler during the planning stages of the operation.[13] Nicolaus von Below, who was present at the planning meetings between Hitler and Halder, wrote after the war that that Halder opposed Hitler's plans without openly stating his disagreement, which according to von Below resulted in disjointed leadership of the campaign.[14]"

Cite [13] can go to p. 147 of Stahel's book, and cite [14] can go to page 146.

--RelativeRisk1945 (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to rewriting the paragraph, but the proposed needs some more thought first. (Most of the issues are also in the original.) I suggest leaving out Stahel and concentrating on the issues. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It passes over the fact that Halder was already planning an attack on the Soviet Union before Hitler declared his intention on 31 July 1940.
 * As Chief of Staff of the OKH, Halder had no command power; he was a staff officer.
 * There were good reasons for putting OKH in charge of the war in the East; demoting Halder was not one of them
 * The "grave hazards of war in the East" are not specified
 * The differences between Halder's plans and the final ones are not specified. Nor is any evidence presented of Halder's opposition.


 * I'm just trying to work with what is there. While we work on re-writing it here, the entire paragraph should be immediately removed because it's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and makes false claims about the underlying source material.  Any confirmed editor reading this should delete the paragraph immediately. --RelativeRisk1945 (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The removal of the paragraph as shown in this diff seems like the right course of action to me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is no need for the paragraph to be in the article. --RelativeRisk1945 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022
The scorched earth military tactics lead to many millions of civilian deaths, though collateral damage was not said at the time. YappingDogYowling (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Comparing older revisions and seeing bias build up
There seems to be a push by a certain "Wikipedia warrior" (her words not mine) to depict the Wehrmacht as a completely evil force with no redemption. We have jumped from one myth, that the Wehrmacht was not part of Hitler's atrocities, to another, that they were on par with Hitler and that all who served were evil, reprehensible demons. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. We do not see this push for dispelling the myth of the clean Red Army, however. We do not see someone trying to dismantle the reputation of Georgy Zhukov, arguably on par with Erwin Rommel when it comes to fame, but we have articles like the Rommel myth which reads like a personal manifesto against the Desert Fox. I do not believe either men are intrinsically evil or believers in the atrocities committed by their autocrats.

Anyways, it is a shame to see the fallen of World War II be desecrated by a revisionist who refuses to see the irony in their behavior. You've replaced one lie with another, bravo! Wolfshaus (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Cowardly of you not to ping as you insult her courageous effort across multiple articles. As far as "revisionist" goes, sometimes the stories of history merit thorough-going re-examination. I applaud K.e.coffman's work to bring Wehrmacht-related articles up to contemporary scholarly standards. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Except she's replacing one "lie" with another. Also the fact she blanked out recipients of the Knights Cross to have them deleted. I can't seem to recall, there is a word to describe people who cover up the parts of history they do not like...
 * Frankly, the Knights Cross stuff is detestable, and is akin to desecrating graves. What if we start doing that with Medal of Honor recipients? There sure are a lot of them, how about we start desecrating them too? After all, the U.S. Armed Forces aren't very clean - ask the Native Americans! History is never perfect good fights total evil. There is always nuance, something that we are forgetting more and more each day. The fact of the matter is, Coffmanizing articles is revisionism, plain and simple. I think its a very good term to describe what has happened to German articles because now all they focus on is "Did you know the Germans did war crimes?" but I never see people getting ready to torch Zhukov or Ivan Konev for loyally serving a sadistic dictator: Josef Stalin.
 * If being a privileged bully and making fun of genuine criticism of your actions like a petulant child is bravery, then I dread to know what your definition of a coward is. Wolfshaus (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, if there are any Medal of Honor recipients that have not received signifiant coverage in independent, reliable sources I, and I believe K.e.coffman, would agree that they should be redirected because they don't meet the Wikipedia notability criteria. Also worth noting that Wikipedia is not a memorial. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Extreme bias
This is laughably biased Jewish content. No article should ever be like this. 78.27.95.6 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2024
Halder did (text said he had none) have complaints about his imprisonment. He had multiple complaints about Ravensbruk including smell from crematorium and screams from others. He also had a bad time at RSHA prison in Berlin where he was kept in solitary confinement with no natural light. He was not allowed to use the toilet. My source is "the Nuremberg Interviews" by Leon Goldensohn/Robert Gellateley. If you check it out there is a first person extended account of his imprisonment 2A00:23EE:14B0:54A6:B4EA:6C67:D9F7:8D82 (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)