Talk:Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz

Name
"Hyacinth," customarily an English woman's name, is the English spelling of the generic name of the flower – which in German is spelled with a z.

The subject was a German male. The subject's given and legal name was Hyazinth. German WP therefore uses Hyazinth. A newly published English-language history of WWII in the Baltics, Prit Buttar's detailed and thoroughly documented Between Giants: The Battle for the Baltics in World War II – published by UK-based Osprey – uses Hyazinth in every mention. To persist in using Hyacinth for this person is an error, regardless of what past (mistaken) practice in English may have been.
 * Ref.: Buttar, Prit. Between Giants: The Battle for the Baltics in World War II. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing (2015). ISBN-10: 1472807499; ISBN-13: 978-1472807496.

, please do not revert my edits again. Thanks. Sca (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * as the main editor who brought this article to the current state, who owns all the sources, I have a strong opionion. It stays as reviewed MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , please enlighten me as to why the name should be spelled with a c rather than a z. For the reasons stated above, it appears to be historically incorrect – in which case, any sources that spell it with a c are (were) wrong. Explain why this is not so.
 * No doubt you put much effort into the article, but that's not a reason to leave it in an erroneous state, no matter what your (or anyone else's) contributions have been, how many books you own, or how strong your opinion may be. Further, effects on WP templates are in internal issue irrelevant to the readers we serve.
 * Wiki is an encyclopedia of information, and you or I don't own any of its articles. An encyclopedia must be accurate, no exceptions. Of course there's leeway in military history for different interpretations of events, but not for erroneous basic historical facts such as misspelling people's names. (For an analogy, a few English-language books spell Hitler's first name as "Adolph." This is simply wrong. Would you stick with "Adolph" if you had worked on an article about him?)
 * I note that the Hyaz/cinth issue has come up before and it probably will again, since it's (IMO) a spelling error. Let's fix it. Sca (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * we all have to acknowledge that Wiki relies on how a lema is predominantly known in English. It is irrelevant how the lema is known in its native language. Köln is known as Cologne and the river Rhein as Rhine. The battleship Friedrich der Große is known in English as Friedrich der Grosse. In my sources he is predominantly spelled with a C. I am very much aware that this is incorrect but it is irrelevant and therefore it stays spelled with a C, as most English sources do. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * to add to that, Röll is the primary authority in English and German. He spelled the name with a C. See the Note in the article to, which I had put there many moons agoMisterBee1966 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You haven't made a reasonable case for why Hyacinth would be the CORRECT spelling for someone whose given name was Hyazinth. English-language names of German towns and rivers are not analagous and irrelevant here. Personal names are whatever they are/were on the record. German, Estonian, Norwegian and Polish WPs all use Hyazinth. (And as noted, to English readers Hyacinth is a woman's name – as in the main character of this sitcom.)


 * Röll may be considered the primary 'authority' on this person, but that doesn't make him infallible. If historical names are misspelled by some sources, such mistakes obviously should not be perpetuated just because someone doesn't feel like changing an article. (BTW, since you evidently are highly interested in the topic, I recommend Buttar's new book.)


 * I've no idea what you mean by lema. Sca (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support what Sca says. If Mozart was spelled Mocart in some reliable source, shouldn't we honour how he himself signed? (Bad enough that we say Amadeus whyle he signed Amadé.) - To give this man a woman's name seems grotesque, not to mention kafkaesque again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia in general uses the spelling of foreign names as it is used in the overwhelming number of English-language sources; see Franz Josef Strauss. However, I'm sure that the English-language coverage of Strachwitz is much thinner, so there is no obstacle to use the German spelling, as done for Fritz Geißler. However2, there's a good case that Strachwitz' first name is even in German "Hyacinth"; see his grave here and here, at this website. He was certainly baptised "Hyacinth", but, according to Bagdonas (2013, p. 15) later used "Hyazinth". I can only conclude that the spelling was not fixed in his own lifetime, which is not unusual for that time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . That seems to explain a lot.
 * Do you have an opinion on whether the article should use Z or C? (I got into this only because I'm reading Buttar's Between Giants, which as noted uses Z.)
 * If Hyacinth was his name, I still have to wonder why German WP and those other WPs use Z. – ??? Sca (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I am back home now with access to my sources. In Röll's book you will find a number of contemporary images (including an image of his grave which is already linked above), documents and newspaper clippings. In every instance you will find his name spelled Hya c inth (with the C). Please remember that his name is derived from the Polish Saint Hyacinth of Poland. In German, this Saint is de:Hyazinth von Polen (note the Z). I can only assume that his move to West Germany introduced the spelling Hyazinth. Historically, over many generations the first born son in the family was named Hyacinth and spelled with a C.MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your conciliatory message on my talk page. Due to that and Michael's post, I'm beginning to understand the situation from your point of view. I apologize for acting on (apparently) insufficient information when I changed the article to the Z spelling.
 * How about putting some sort of explanatory note or footnote in the article regarding the two spellings? Sca (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * From my cursory examination, it doesn't matter whether the article is named using "c" or "z", but an explanatory footnote – baptised in family tradition as "Hyacinth", then preferred "Hyazinth" – should be provided. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * just tossing a belated 2 cents into the conversation: Hyacinth is the common spelling of the ungendered name. It might also be spelled with an e at the end. Wikipedia has a set index article with an explanation.  auntieruth (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Request move to "Hyazinth" while GAR in progress
The recent move somehow disabled the link to the GAR from the top of the Talk page. I suggest the article be moved back to "Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz" while the GAR is in progress. Would there be any objections?

Or if someone knows how to re-add the link to Good article reassessment/Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz/1‎, that would be an alternate solution. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes; it shouldn't have been moved unilaterally in the first place. You did not address the valid points Misterbee raised the last two times it was discussed. Clearly it was controversial, so WP:RM should have been used.
 * Problem solved. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
This article passed GAR in 2016, but the edits that led to the GAR have been restored unilaterally. If the main source is the problem, perhaps the source itself should be the subject of a discussion. Srnec (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A publisher of another book on the subject wrote in their blog: [Strachwitz] wrote no memoirs; left no diary, and any notes and papers were lost along with him home in 1945. His records of service in the 16th Panzer Division were destroyed along with the division in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943. After a period of distinguished service with the elite Grossdeutschland Division, he served as commander of several ad-hoc units, some bearing his name, in a period when records, if kept at all, were scanty, or lost.
 * Given the dearth of records, what makes Röll a reliable source? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who Röll is or if he is reliable. I watchlisted this page after it reached GA because it looked interesting to read some day. I only know that your previous removals were reverted and then the article passed GAR. So what has changed? Srnec (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What's changed in the intervening five years is my knowledge of the topic area in general and, more specifically, what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources in this TA. The same has hopefully occurred in the wider MILHIST community.
 * For clarification, Röll is the source that the article is largely cited to:
 * Since you mentioned that the [main] the source itself should be the subject of a discussion, I assumed you meant Röll. You did want to discuss the source, did you not? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not me. I have nothing to say about it. As I said, this page was on my watchlist because I don't know anything about it. But if Röll is not RS, then this article isn't GA and can't be easily rescued. Perhaps time for another GAR? Srnec (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not me. I have nothing to say about it. As I said, this page was on my watchlist because I don't know anything about it. But if Röll is not RS, then this article isn't GA and can't be easily rescued. Perhaps time for another GAR? Srnec (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I restored the article to the state of the GAR and started adding Bagdonas as a secondary source. Please let me know if you have concerns with this approach. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have concerns. I have recently removed a number of extraordinary claims and excessive intricate details that are unlikely to be found in Bagonas, given the Casemate quote at the top of this thread. The blog, linked here for convenience, discusses the loss of records or bad record keeping towards the end of the war.
 * Also, as one editor eloquently put it in 2016: "This is a GAR for a 10,000+ word essay full of Nazi WP:FANCRUFT that apparently meets the GA criteria of a wikiproject with its own set of rules for what's encyclopedic."). Restoring the article to the "GAR state" does not advance the goals of the encyclopedia to be a good platform for quality controlled information. It might be better to work on a sandbox version first and integrate Bagonas there. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Would you be supportive to retain content which can be linked to Bagdonas as a source even if it is also mentioned by Röll? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * That really depends on whether it can be established that Bagdonas is RS. Two bad sources that agree with each other do not make the information more suitable for a wiki article. Using the WP:SOURCEDEF model, the following needs clarification:
 * The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
 * The piece of work itself: Are there reviews of the book in reputable publications? What do they say?
 * The creator of the work: What are Bagdonas' qualifications? What makes him an expert in this topic area?
 * The publisher of the work: Casemate Publishers is not exactly known as a rigorous publisher.


 * Bagdonas's preface as quoted in the blog raises more questions than it answers, i.e.:
 * How exactly does one write a book-length biography without adequate sources?
 * Related to that, how has the author concluded that the subject was "one of the most effective panzer leaders in the German Army"; a "legend among those who fought on the Eastern Front"; one of the "good men" who "served [an evil cause] without adding to its criminality"?
 * What does Bagdonas mean when he suggests that he may "have lapsed occasionally in some descriptions that add color and life to some of [Strachwitz's] actions"?
 * There are some other odd comments and omissions in there. Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Would you consider the historian de:Ludger Tewes a reliable author? He wrote the book Die Panzergrenadierdivision Großdeutschland im Feldzug gegen die Sowjetunion 1942 bis 1945 [The Panzergrenadierdivision Großdeutschland in the campaign against the Soviet Union from 1942 to 1945] which also talks about Strachwitz. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds more promising. Although this would limit the time period to January − November 1943, at which point Strachwitz left Großdeutschland. Is my understanding correct? Or does Tewes cover other periods in Strachwitz's career? --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just received the book by Professor Trewes. The book contains more than 1200 pages which I have not read yet. However, the first scan showed that information on Strachwitz is based on a variety of sources, including the personal archive of Strachwitz, made available by Johannes Graf Strachwitz, and the book by Hans-Joachim Röll. In consequence, I question if the claim that Röll is an unreliable source can be sustained. Thoughts? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just made a few edits to remove unnecessary German language terms. The 'Battle for the Narva Bridgehead' section seems a bit suspect. While the Soviet offensives in this region were bungled, the current text is hard to follow and reads like German romancer material at times (for instance, the usual tropes about German "grenadiers" fighting off vast waves of Soviets). The material would benefit from being cross checked against other sources, such as David Glantz's works. I agree that some of the material cited to Röll in particular also seems a bit dubious at times. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that the article should discuss Strachwitz's Nazi Party membership given that he joined well before this was common (e.g. when it became a de-facto prerequisite for ambitious military officers and government officials). This and his role in suppressing the revolution after the First World War suggest that he was a political extremist, and likely held the usual range of racist and bigoted views that were common among Nazis. The article uses some weasel words on both topics. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The material on Strachwitz's role in the last weeks of the war is also problematic. The current text provides a very positive account of his advocacy for forming ad-hoc infantry units armed with handheld anti-tank weapons. This was obviously a desperate tactic that proved ineffective against the massive firepower the Allies could bring to bear. When I visited the German military history museum in Dresden it gave these types of late-war units as an example of the criminality of the Nazi regime in throwing vast numbers of lives away continuing what was clearly a lost war. This also suggests that Strachwitz was one of the Army's die hard extremists in this period of the war. Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: I see that is editing the article to add Bagdonas and restore Röll without having established that they are reliable sources for the topic area, despite several suggestions in this thread to do so. Continued from WP:SOURCEDEF mentioned above:
 * Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.''
 * Bolding in the original. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The below is helpful. However, the concern expressed on this thread was about Röll 2011 and Bagdonas 2013. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a later and possibly larger book (or at least a later edition) by Röll (and others) about Strachwitz in Polish . Of course that doesn't answer the question of how reliable he is or what limits can be placed on the source.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A review of Röll's book on a blog - it describes the book as the best source on Strachwitz that the authpr of the blog had seen, although he did note that the book didn't cover Strachwitz's involvement with the Nazis adequately and he notes a number of technical flaws. Interestingly, one of the comments below the blog mentions what appears to be an earlier biography written in the 1960s by "Fraschka" (possibly Gunther Fraschka).Nigel Ish (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fraschka is who published apologist and hero worshiping pamphlets about Knight's Cross winners, such as the 1968 With Swords and Diamonds—The Bearers of the Highest German Award for Bravery, as well as published titles in the dubious Der Landser. According to de.wiki, Fraschka embellished and outright invented details in his stories, which I suspect happened in the previously cited material in the Strachwitz article:


 * In general, Strachwitz, although personally very brave, was a relatively insignificant combat leader; his highest command was that of a tank regiment. He then commanded a battle group during (relatively minor) fighting for the Krivasoo bridgehead in Estonia which ended in Strachwitz's failure to eliminate the Soviet positions. Given Strachwitz's general obscurity, it's not surprising that his biography has previously attracted authors of dubious and / or non-existing reputations, such as Röll and Bagdonas. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 edits

 * Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "shortening -- not about Strachwitz or his command". --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Another diff; my rationale was: "dubious and / or undue intricate details cited to non-RS". --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Diff; my rationale was: "Listing of ranks is unneeded, as already integrated into the narrative". --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

During one engagement on the northern flank of the Kessel, his unit destroyed 105 T-34s.
The above text was recently removed, based on the fact that that Williamson is not a reliable source for this type of detail. Beevor mentions what appears to be the same incident in Stalingrad on page 124, in which von Strachwitz's unit fought a prolonged battle on the north front against 'wave after wave' of attacks by T-34s and American-supplied lend lease tanks over a period of two days - with over a hundred Soviet tanks being destroyed. Beevor does not state a date for this encounter but says it was shortly before he handed the unit over to Freytag-Loringhoven and returned to Germany (according to Beevor "on account of his age") - so if the dates in the article are correct would put this action in late September or early October. Note that this is well before Operation Uranus was launched, so referring to the Kessel is incorrect as the 6th Army had not been encircled, and would not be for a month after he left the front.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your recommendation is here? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As there appears to be extensive edit-warring about the content of the article - I was hoping to get some sort of buy-in whether it is acceptable before adding what can be sourced to Beevor. It would also be nice to get a more precise date for the action (perhaps one of Stephen Glantz's books on Stalingrad will give that sort of detail. It also gives an indication that the article does need to be checked for sloppy writing like the "northern flank of the Kessel".Nigel Ish (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Beevor is a fine source. Gordon Williamson (writer): not so much. At some point, I saw the page he dedicated to Strachwitz in his Knight's Cross with Diamonds Recipients 1941–45; it's hero worship and dubious. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that parts of the article have become very disjointed (whether due to rewrites and removals or as a foundational issue). We have statements like "By this time the 16th Panzer Division was assigned to the 6th Army, which was encircled at Stalingrad in November 1942." As far as I can tell from Beevor, 16th Panzer was part of the 6th Army for at least all of Case Blue and talking about 6th Army being encircled before talking about events that happened earlier like Strachwitz gaining command of the Regiment makes the article confusing, and makes it difficult to know where precisely to re-add mention of the engagement on the north side of the salient which resulted in 100+ soviet tanks being knocked out.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the issue with the Kessel story. Because of the on-going discussion, I've not edited the article further. The page needs to be checked for npov; puffery; omissions / obfuscations; excessive & tangential intricate detail (most sourced to non-RS); and dubious & extraordinary statements, sourced to same. Here's the article before I edited it: December 2015. It contains the same statement about the Kessel: During one engagement on the northern flank of the Kessel, his unit destroyed 105 T-34s.[44]
 * I was able to locate Williamson's Knight's Cross with Diamonds; link: pp 26–27. The story about the 105 Soviet tanks is placed by Williamson as having occurred in 1943. So whoever inserted the Kessel statement was both confused about the facts (according to the article Strachwitz was flown out on 10 November before the encirclement), and then confused 1942 vs 1943 by misreading the source. Let alone used a dubious, Wehrmacht/Waffen-SS hero-worshiping source to begin with. This is just one example; the article does indeed need to be checked throughout. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ludger Tewes, reliability as a source
de:Ludger Tewes is a member of the faculty of the University of Potsdam, see PD Dr. Ludger Tewes. His work on "Panzergrenadierdivision Großdeutschland" is one of his projects at the university. Sönke Neitzel is the head of the department (Professur für Militärgeschichte / Kulturgeschichte der Gewalt) Tewes works for. In consequence, I consider the source reliable in context of this article. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Involvement with the German resistance
The section regarding Strachwitz involvement in the "Plan Lanz", the attempt to arrest Hitler at Valky in February 1943, was removed on account this section being attributed to Röll as a source. On page 295, de:Ludger Tewes tells the same story. This information is also found in the German book by the historian Peter Hoffmann (historian) ''Widerstand – Staatsstreich – Attentat. Der Kampf der Opposition gegen Hitler'' [Resistance, Coup d'etat, Assassination — The Battle of the Opposition against Hitler] on pages 348 to 350. In consequence, I advocate for the re-inclusion of this information with a reference to these sources. Objections? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually in the "Potential synthesis" subsection, it says that Röll states that Strachwitz probably wasn't involved in the plot. I'm not convinced that this is any more than a vague rumour.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your statement implies that Röll is reliable. Röll on the other hand derived his doubt on the statement made by Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff. The original section presented both sides of the story. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For sake of this discussion, I included the text by Hoffmann and Tewes, with the counter thesis by Röll into the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

World War I
Is there some reason for two World War I sections? I know it was important, but...Nigel Ish (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hyacinth or Hyazinth
According to Raymond Bogdanos in his biography of Graf Strachwitz, The Devil’s General: The Life of Hyazinth Graf von Strachwitz, “The Panzer Graf”, "Hyaincth" is the Anglicised misnomer of the subject's real name "Hyazinth", which was the name that he was known as throughout his life.(A more apt comparison in this case would be whether Hitler should be named "Adolph" or "Adolf".---&#60;font face&#61;&#34;Georgia&#34;&#62;&#39;&#39;&#39;User:Lawrencegordon &#124;&#60;span style&#61;&#34;color:#009900&#34;&#62;lawrencegordon &#60;/span&#62;&#39;&#39;&#39;&#60;/font&#62;&#60;font face&#61;&#34;Courier New&#34;&#62;&#60;sub&#62;&#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User talk:Lawrencegordon &#124;&#60;span style&#61;&#34;color:#006600&#34;&#62;I am the best &#60;/span&#62;&#93;&#93;&#39;&#39;&#60;/sub&#62;&#60;/font&#62; (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever your preferred source says, there is absolutely no excuse for changing the titles of sources that are already in the article - the title of Röll uses Hyacinth, as can be seen by its Worldcat entry.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

And it's been fixed now. Therefore, the problem is no longer relevent.---&#60;font face&#61;&#34;Georgia&#34;&#62;&#39;&#39;&#39;User:Lawrencegordon &#124;&#60;span style&#61;&#34;color:#009900&#34;&#62;lawrencegordon &#60;/span&#62;&#39;&#39;&#39;&#60;/font&#62;&#60;font face&#61;&#34;Courier New&#34;&#62;&#60;sub&#62;&#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User talk:Lawrencegordon &#124;&#60;span style&#61;&#34;color:#006600&#34;&#62;I am the best &#60;/span&#62;&#93;&#93;&#39;&#39;&#60;/sub&#62;&#60;/font&#62; (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)