Talk:Otto von Bülow

numbers in the oak leaf awards system
K.e. coffman, I reverted the removal of the numbers from the statement re oak leaves. All sources seem to refer to the oak leafs and their numbers as integral to one another. Although it may not seem important to one reader, it is important in the overall magnitude of the award. Please do not delete information without any apparent motivation. What seems trivial to you is not necessarily trivial. auntieruth (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , what sources are you referring to? I've not yet come across sources that include the numbering scheme when discussing the recipients. Please see for example: "Oak leaves" mentions in Hitler's Stuka Squadrons. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fellgiebel includes the numbers sometimes in his listing for Oak Leaves recipients, which suggests that not all may be known.Kges1901 (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there sources outside of phaleristics literature that include the numbering scheme? The initial claim was that "all sources seem to refer...." to it. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A contemporary TIME Magazine article is not phaleristics. Scherzer also seems to include numbers, because in some of the Knight's Cross list articles the entries that list the numbers are sourced to him, though I can't verify because it isn't available online. Also, can you explain why you consider Fellgiebel phaleristics? Kges1901 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Both are catalogues of Knight's Cross winners; here's a sample page from Scherzer: image, as part of this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

removal of Wehrmachtbericht material
According to German historian Felix Römer, a named mention in the Wehrmachtbericht was an award. This statement is also supported by Erich Murawski. You may want to familiarize yourself with the wording of the Wehrmacht directive which governs the named reference. "namentliche Nennung im Wehrmachtbericht" or "Namensnennung im Wehrmachtsbericht", or in English "naming in the armed forces report", on 27 April 1940 (published in: HVBl. from 06.05.1940, part C, 27 edit., p. 189, no. 520. I can get it for you if you need it.

Walther von Brauchitsch stated the following: "In future the names of soldiers who excelled themselves in combat actions in an outstanding way will be named. This is a very special honour. Thus only deeds will be recognized which call such a special attention from others that they justify a public mentioning in front of the German people. The task of the generals in command is to judge if the deed does correspond to these high claims. In calm times another criterion should be used then in times of important combat actions."

Consequently, listing the Wehrmachtbericht named mention as an award does not require Wikipedia consensus: it already reflects current academic understanding. Please don't remove it! auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting. What exactly does Römer say? I've previously looked for material on the Wehrmachtbericht as a military commendation, but could not find any: Talk:Wehrmachtbericht. Context re: Römer would be helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)