Talk:General of the Cavalry (Germany)

Issue of equivalance
It appears that User:Illraute and User:Hamish59 cannot agree in relation to the equivalence of this rank to the contemporary US Army rank of Lieutenant General. It is also clear that online sources are divided on the issue. This matter has been the subject of some discussion at User talk:IIIraute, and instead of engaging in discussion, there has been a reversion to edit-warring. This is not a positive turn of events, and I encourage both editors to resolve their differences here. I have made my view clear that I believe that during WWII, the rank of "General der Kavallarie" was equivalent to "Lieutenant General" in the US Army. This appears to coincide with User:Hamish59's view, but appears to be contrary to User:Illraute's view. I have warned User:Illraute for edit-warring here, and have suggested a RfC to resolve the issue. I will take this matter to RfC and if necessary, to administrator's noticeboards unless cooler heads prevail. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this article is about the rank "General of the Cavalry (Germany)" from 1871-1945 it mostly applies to the Imperial Army - the rank only did exist for approx. two years in WWII - therefore Hamish59s edit was factually wrong and not of any benefit for the article. Why give the quivalent to the US rank specifically? Could you please answer this? It is enough to have a link to "Comparative officer ranks of World War II‎"--IIIraute (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 25% of all the named generals in this article were from WWII. That is, I believe, sufficient coverage to include the equivalence in WWII. As I say, happy for you to add the equivalence in the Imperial Army. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, could you please specify why exactly to give the quivalent to the US rank and not the British, etc.?--IIIraute (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In WWII UK/US are the same. I fail to see why you object to providing an equivalent. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about a historical rank that cannot be set perfectly equal to a current rank of NATO, etc.. Therefore I would like to know why exactly to give the equivalent to the US rank of WWII but not the Soviet, etc. one - please explain. I also do not like the term "equivalent" - because they weren't fully equal. They were as equal as an Earl and a Graf are - sure, you can compare them, they are very similar - but they are not the exact equivalent titles.--IIIraute (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the WP:RS that I have mentioned beg to differ. Regardless, the expectation is that we provide the equivalent when we write the articles that involve these ranks (this is en WP after all). That is a reasonable expectation IMO. The reality is that in WWII while there were some exceptions in British, US and German armies at times and for good reasons, the ranks closely related to the roles (ie a General der Infanterie commanded a Corps, as did a Lieutenant General). Again, I fail to see why this is such an issue for you. Please explain. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 15:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the sources do not beg to differ - they always compare the rank in the context of post-1945 adjustments. Suggesting that a German Lieutenant-General is the same as a US Major-General is not correct. They might have had the same or a similar position - but it is not the same rank. A German and a US Lieutenant-General would have been of same rank when they met in WWII. Panzer Group West (PzAOK 5), for example, was both times in command of a General der Panzertruppe and Leo Geyr von Schweppenburg, did previously command a corps in the rank of Lieutenant-General. In general, you are right - however it is unfortunate to have to compare those ranks. The equivalent of General der Kavallerie is General of the Cavalry. If that rank does not exist one has to go for the next best solution, I guess - but it is not very academic. The Earl/Graf example, should exemplify my point. I also think it is enough to have a link to "Comparative officer ranks of World War II", because I see no reason on why (just because this en WP) one has to give a direct equivalent to a US army rank - as en does not mean US.--IIIraute (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Lots of stuff to answer here.
 * 1. My edit to put back in "(US equivalent: Lieutenant General)" was to try to return the article to the position it was in before User:IIIraute's first edit. I have no interest in getting into an edit war, but felt that it was inappropriate for Illraute to chop this out when discussion was still ongoing at WikiProject Military history and User talk:IIIraute.
 * 2. "equivalent to the US rank and not the British" point raised by IIIraute is, I believe, a red herring (in the sence of "distracting from the actual issue"). I have no problem with "equivalent to British or US Lieutenant General" or "equivalent to Lieutenant General in English speaking armies" or some such format.
 * 3. I believe that it is not suffcicent to link to Comparative officer ranks of World War II‎. I think it is important to specify that General der Kavallerie was _not_ equivalent to "General" in English speaking armies in the article itself, preferably close to the top (lede section needed, perhaps?).
 * 4. There seems to be an issue with the word "equivalent". Perhaps IIIraute is taking the meaning of "equal in value, ammount, importance" (The Oxford English Reference Dictionary, definition 1) as noted above in his statement of "perfectly equal" or use of "same" in a number of places.  I take the second meaning of "corresponding" = "analagous or similar".  I am not arguing that they are the same, identical, whatever, but they are corresponding.
 * 5. I am not too sure what "exist for approx. two years in WWII" is about. Please feel free to inform me.  It appears that the rank existed into 1944 at least: Erick-Oskar Hansen.
 * 6. I note that the same issue will occur in General der Infanterie, General der Artillerie, General der Panzertruppe, General der Gebirgstruppe, General der Pioniere, General der Flieger, General der Fallschirmtruppe, General der Nachrichtentruppe, General der Luftwaffe and General der Flakartillerie.
 * 7. "The equivalent of General der Kavallerie is General of the Cavalry. If that rank does not exist one has to go for the next best solution" - spot on! And the next best soloution is Lt-Gen, in my opinion.
 * 8. It is my contention that the lowest General Officer rank in the German Army (Imperial, Riechwehr, Wehrmacht) was Generalmajor. The lowest General Officer rank in the English speaking armies (i.e. British, US) was "Brigadier General".  That makes them equivalent, in my opinion (or "corresponding", if you prefer).  By the same process, the second lowest ranks were Generalleutnant / Major General, the third lowest General der ... / Lieutenant General and so on through Generaloberst / General and Generalfeldmarschall / Field Marshal / US General of the Army.  Hamish59 (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...so, when a German and a US Lieutenant-General met in WWII, they would not have been of same rank? --IIIraute (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; Generalleutnant was not the same / equivalent / corresponding rank as a US Lt-Gen. Hamish59 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * concur. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * not correct - they might have had separate positions (regarding their corresponding rank), but they both held the rank of Lieutenant-General - why is this so difficult to understand. A German Lieutenant-General was not the same as a US Major-General, although they might have had corresponding ranks. I don't really understand this school-grade concept of having to establish rank-equivalents anyway - none of the other articles does use it. It is very unfortunate to have to compare those ranks, as they were ranks in their own right, respectively. The equivalent of General der Kavallerie is General of the Cavalry. If that rank does not exist one has to go for the next best solution, that's true - but only because of this non-academic concept established by some editors. If one, for whatever reason, has to establish equivalents, it only makes sense to correlate them as it was done in "Comparative officer ranks of World War II‎", but one should very much refrain from establishing direct comparisons, i.e. US Army rank. Please also bear in mind that there are several sources that do not support that claim of equivalence.--IIIraute (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They support a claim of equivalence though, don't they? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

...yes, and since they differ so much, we would be advised best to either not refer to equivalent ranks at all, but rather explain the position of this rank, i.e. usually commanding a corps, and refer to Comparative officer ranks of World War II‎ -  or create a separate section within the article where this issue is thoroughly dealt with, i.e. different sources associate different ranks, the difference between Imperial Army and Wehrmacht, the introduction of the rank Generaloberst, etc.. But a simple reference in the lead, saying "the equivalent is US bla, bla.." is not acceptable.--IIIraute (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * what about adding words like "this rank was comparable to the WWII US or British Commonwealth army rank of lieutenant general, with officers at this rank usually commanding a corps"? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfectly happy with this solution. The more explanation, clarification, the better, I think.  Might be an idea to make it some sort of generic prose so it can slot in to all the other German General... articles.  Hamish59 (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that would be ok, however one should also point out the difference regarding this rank within the Imperial Army and Wehrmacht, as well as this article being about General of the Cavalry (1871-1945) - so somehow one doesn't get around mentioning the introduction of the rank Generaloberst.--IIIraute (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what "difference regarding this rank within the Imperial Army and Wehrmacht". Can you explain, please.  Hamish59 (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it is Illraute's contention that the rank comparison with lieutenant general did not apply in the Imperial Army and Reichswehr per his sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * → ← Please note that the rank of Generaloberst was created originally for Emperor William I, then Prince of Prussia, because traditionally members of the royal family were not promoted to the rank of a field marshal - hence, what was the situation before this rank was created - what happened to a General of the Cavalry from the Royal Prussian Army in 1871 - now, being General of the Cavalry of the Imperial Army, suddenly he wasn't equivalent to a General anymore?
 * Maybe we should also add a note to the text that several sources disagree regarding your claim for the Wehrmacht → . --IIIraute (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your first source Handbook of Imperial Germany is questionable. I believe that the table given is a translation of Imperial German ranks, not equivalence.  I have never heard of the British or American armies having a rank of "General of Infantry" or "General of Cavalry".  Please feel to correct me.  I note that this source has no mention of Emperor William I.
 * On the subject of William I. According to Wilhelm I. (Deutsches Reich) 1854 wurde er zugleich Generaloberst der Infanterie mit dem Rang eines Feldmarschalls und Gouverneurs der Festung Mainz.  This would suggest that the rank of Generaloberst existed before 1871 so I do not see the relavence.  I note that 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica says In 1854 the prince was raised to the rank of a field-marshal and made governor of the federal fortress of Mainz. so again, not germane to this discussion.
 * Your second source The Brusilov Offensive is also questionable. The Brusilov Offensive was in World War I, so has nothing to do with the Wehrmacht.  In any case, I think we can safely dismiss this source or are you suggesting that the Imperial German Army really had a rank of "General" that was equivalent to US/British "Brigadier General"?  Again, feel free to correct me.
 * My main point remains: the lowest General Officer rank in the German Army (Imperial, Riechwehr, Wehrmacht) was Generalmajor and therefore coreesponded to the lowest General Officer rank in the English speaking armies (i.e. British, US) "Brigadier General". Likewise, the second lowest ranks were Generalleutnant / Major General, the third lowest General der ... / Lieutenant General, and Generaloberst / General and Generalfeldmarschall / Field Marshal / US General of the Army.  You have not addressed this point.  Hamish59 (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question regarding 1871 at all - claiming that a Prussian General wasn't equal is just nonsense. Feel free to argue as much as you want - but the sources say something different and there are more of it - so you'll have to live with them, period. Your "main point...: the lowest General Officer rank in the German Army..." comparisons do not matter as they are WP:OR. That's how the WP works.
 * Regarding Generaloberst you still don't seem to get in your head that we are talking about different rank-systems and one cannot translate/set them in equivalence 1:1. You obviously don't have a very deep knowledge of the subject and also your knowledge of the German language seems rather limited: "1854 wurde er zugleich Generaloberst der Infanterie mit dem Rang eines Feldmarschalls und Gouverneurs der Festung Mainz" shows very clearly that the rank Generaloberst was meant to be equal (mit dem Rang) with Feldmarschall - General of the Army - therefore "...the Prince was raised to the rank of a field-marshal and made governor of the federal fortress of Mainz". Are you getting it .... Generaloberst = Feldmarschall, but only for Wilhelm I. - so for other officers the highest rank below Feldmarschall was General. Ergo, you just totally confuted your own argument. --IIIraute (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not content with red herrings and questionable sources, now we get ad hominem attacks. Please keep this civil. Hamish59 (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...what a nonsense: "...red herrings, questionable sources, and ad hominem attacks" - that's all you have to offer - why don't you stay on topic?--IIIraute (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that you have now shifted to Talk:General of the Infantry (Germany) instead of settling the matter here. Hamish59 (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a bit of WP:IDHT and incivility going on here. Can we get some proposed edits on the table here on this talkpage rather than all over WP to address this properly instead of going around in circles and jumping from one talkpage to another? I have suggested adding "this rank was comparable to the WWII US or British Commonwealth army rank of lieutenant general, with officers at this rank usually commanding a corps", and Illraute has suggested that more needs to be added, per "however one should also point out the difference regarding this rank within the Imperial Army and Wehrmacht, as well as this article being about General of the Cavalry (1871-1945) - so somehow one doesn't get around mentioning the introduction of the rank Generaloberst.". What words exactly do you think need to be added? Can we start with the idea of a paragraph to clarify this that goes something like:

"The rank of General of the Cavalry has existed since XXXX, and its position relative to ranks in other armies has varied since its introduction. In the army of Imperial Germany the rank was... (citation here), however with the introduction of the rank of Generaloberst in XXXX,... (citation here) In the interwar Reichswehr the rank was ... (citation here) In the Wehrmacht the rank was comparable to the WWII US or British Commonwealth army rank of lieutenant general, with officers at this rank usually commanding a corps' (citation here)."
 * Can we get some suggestions to expand this or fill in the blanks (or alternative formulations) along with some citations from reliable texts published by university presses or similar to support each? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a start on the Austrian section using two texts, Deak from Oxford UP and Rothenburg from Purdue UP. Feel free to expand, but please work with what is there. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfectly happy with your proposed text, Peacemaker. I am sure IIIraute will be able to fill in the blanks / provide the references / sources.  Hamish59 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I take note of both of your comments - let me get back to you after doing some research. --IIIraute (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Split into two
I have split this article into two and created a new header article. There now exists:
 * General of the Cavalry
 * General of the Cavalry (Germany)
 * General of the Cavalry (Austria)

I have done this for two reasons. The first was the article Christian of the Palatinate-Zweibrücken (1752–1817). He ended up a general of cavalry in the Bavarian Army, we need a page that defines that rank without the baggage that this article pulls in about more modern states. There will be a lot of men with this rank from the Napoleonic and earlier wars for whom a link to a more general article is useful.

The second reason is that a list of men of a certain rank should be listed by state. There is no reason to mix Austrian Empire and German Empire officers together than there is to for a mixed list of British and French officers of similar ranks into the same article (Successor states is a different matter).

-- PBS (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My interest in this article is limited to the Wehrmacht rank, so "fill your boots" as far as I am concerned. Others may disagree. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Scope
Currently the article says

What about previous to the formation of the German Empire. Should the Prussian army be included in this article? What about those (if any) who were in the armies of the Confederation of the Rhine (1806 to 1815), German Confederation (1815 to 1866) and North German Confederation (1866 to 1870/71)?

I am not sure when the rank first came into use but Johann von Werth held the rank in the "imperial and Bavarian and Cologne services" during the Thirty Years War (1618–1648), so should such a man be included in the list in this article (ignoring for the moment that it might be more appropriate to include him in the General of the Cavalry (Austria) article)?

-- PBS (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)