Talk:Walter Model

Picture
Added picture of him. I took it from German wikipedia, i suppose it is legimate to do so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.151.185 (talk • contribs).
 * If the image in the German Wikipedia is a free image, then the answer is yes. 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Who was his adjutant?
"Furthermore, he appointed a Waffen-SS officer as his adjutant at Army Group North in 1944"

Is there any citation available for this?

In 1981 I interveiwed Herr Walter Thomas, a German historian, who claimed to have been Model's adjutant while the 2nd SS Panzer Corps was in R&R at Arnhem

He claimed to have been shielded by Model from Gestapo officials who suspected his involvement in the Assassination plot, due his NOT being in either the SS or the Party

He was demoted after the Wacht am Rhein and was not with Model's staff when he committed suicide.

As an aside, he also confirmed that not only did Model believe that the Arnhem paratroopers were sent to kidnap him (and he presumed other Generals as well) but that when the Market Garden plans taken from a British Glider (NOT a dispatch rider) were handed to him, he dismissed them as fakes, and didn't bother even to read them to see if they matched up with the situation on the ground until day 3

Model also refused to believe reports of the XXX Corps' advance until he received a dispatch from Bittrich, which included an American paratrooper's helmet & a mudguard from a British armoured car

Finally, Herr Thomas said that Model was so impressed by the bravery of the 1st Paras, that he wanted to personally offer them an honourable surrender, but was persuaded that it was too dangerous

In the event a junior officer called Bischoff (sorry don't know his rank, I missed it out in my notes) was sent, leading to the famous "I'm sorry, we don't have the facilities to take you all prisoner" answer

Sadly, the only publication for all of this is an old school magazine, so is Original Research and unsuitable for the main article, but I thought some might find it interesting chrisboote 12:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The adjutant business is from Newton, Hitler's Commander, p.269: "Leaving East Prussia... Model happened to comment at Fuhrer headquarters that, having been on extended leave, he lacked a personal adjutant. When Hitler's SS liaison, Hermann Fegelein, heard this, he immediately offered Model a young Waffen SS officer for the post. Asking only about the officer's field experience, Model accepted him without ever considering how such a selection might jar the sensitivites of his staff." The officer himself isn't named, unfortunately. This is in turn sourced from Walter Görlitz, Model: Strategie der Defensive, p.163. I haven't been able to get access to Görlitz's book, which is in German in any case.


 * Thanks for the Market Garden anecdote about Model. It sounds plausible, since he was the type of person who would be bull-headed enough to back his first impressions despite evidence to the contrary. I agree it probably counts as OR though. -- Hongooi 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will be in Germany in October, I presume the Görlitz book will be in the Bundesarchiv? If so, i will make a side trip to read it. I DO speak German 8-) chrisboote 15:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Market Garden events are in the film (of the historical book) "A Bridge Too Far", so I would think that in can be found in Cornelius Ryan's tome.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Ding! Just re-read the para in Newton. WAFFEN SS is of course very different from SS! Checking my Notes, Herr Thomas was on Fegelein's staff, possibly as a driver, after serving in the Florien Geyer Cavalry Division, so that fits.
 * chrisboote 12:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * SS Hauptsturmführer Rudloph Maeker was appointed Model's adjutant. He was wounded on 22 July 1944 and replaced by SS Sturmbannführer Heinrich Springer. (Stein, p. 128) Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of his given name
It actually was Walther, with an "h". The spelling of hids name at the top should be corrected. Ojevindlang (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You sure about that? The German Wikipedia article agrees with this spelling. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining article quality.
Recent edits have been of poor grammar, sometimes incoherent and un-encyclopaedic. They have also removed referenced passages without discussion or appropriate explanation. While bold editing isn't necessarily wrong, this is a Featured Article, and to keep it that way, editing standards need to be higher. I am verging on reverting all of these edits until interested editors engage in proper discussion. Hohum (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have deleted more poor changes today, and restored about 10 citations and several paragraphs of good information. Dapi89 (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the erroneous interpretation concerning the reason for the splitting up of units and added stein's book again in the bibiliography where it was removed . Knispel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Stop removing other sources and replacing them with your own. If there is a difference of opinion, then add the disagreement. Deleting one perspective (which is only erroneous in your opinion) in favour of another is not acceptable. And editing with an IP account in an attempt to disguise your identity is tantamount to socket puppetry –cease and desist. Dapi89 (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * the reason given for the splitting up of units in the original text is an opinion and was presented as fact and is therefore deleted.It will continue to be deleted until it is explicitly presented as an opinion and it is clearly stated whose opinion it is.I have also reninstated the phrase about Model limiting the practice of splitting of units.This is pure fact because there is documentary evidence for it to which I referred before it was removed.Removing Walter stein's book from the bibliography was clearly an act of maliceKnispel (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

Rubbish. It was not removed. If you continue this line of action I'll have to get admins involved. Dapi89 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase which contains Newtons opinion about the reason for the splitting up of operational and theatre reserves is rephrased so that it is clear it is his interpretation and not fact .If it is not newtons opinion but someone else's it cannot be difficult to correct it.I have also reninstated the phrase about Model limiting the practice of splitting of units.This is pure fact because there is documentary evidence for it to which I referred before it was removed again and again.Its mention is necessary to make it clear that the the splitting up of units was an expedient imposed by circonstances.Concerning the Der Führer regiment the phrase has been changed to make it clearer it received other units in support and not replascements for its casualties.Threatening to get admins involved ,makes no impression at all.All changes are sourced and as a result the article is less based on one biography.

Knispel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC).


 * An incoherent response. My complaint was about your vandal-like removals. As a said, removing one source for another is not acceptable. Your complaint re: the article is less based on one biography - is a joke considering you were removing multiple sources in exchange for one. And it took a threat to get you to behave appropriately, which you now have. Dapi89 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedic article should not contain opinons,just cold facts.Removing an opinion from one author and replacing it by simple facts from another biographer without interpretation is not vandalism.It does not make much difference.It states the same thing without the opinion.It is for the reader to interpret.Knispel (talk)

Maintaining a continuous defenseline is not about having no outposts in front. Models idea about the arrangement of an infantrydivision in defense can be found in a document of 08.04.1944 of which a quote follows(GFM Model,Dokumentation eines Soldatenlebens ,Hannsgeorg Model and Dermot Bradley Biblio Verlag 1991,p171). Part of a document with 7 annexes which contain the general instructions for battle to ensure that all units of AGr Northukraine, particularly units coming from other fronts and newly setup units apply the same principles based on experience :

"The schematic sketch in annexe serves as plan for the arrangement of an infantrydivision in defense. It uses the experiences made in the latest battles. The aim to be achieved is the better conservation of the battle strength of our Grenadiere while at the same time more destruction is inflicted on the attacking enemy. As has always to be observed, the enemy wants to achieve fast breakthroughs with the highest power of his artillery preparation fire. 1) the plan must ,by an advanced area, make our grenadiere evade the full preparatory fire and by the delayed advance of the enemy to the HKL give them the necessary time to deploy all local reserves. The advanced area will according to the terrain have to be 1-3 km deep. It is to be occupied by advanced posts richly armed with machineguns. Barbed wire is to be used againts enemy raids, circular defense. The accomodations of the advanced post are behind the HKL. The advanced posts are commanded by the regiments in their sectors. After the fighting the advanced area is to be reoccupied." In this quote one can clearly see that Model wanted a line of outposts in front of the HKL.Bruchmuller (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Model did not beleive in the fragmented use of Panzerdivisions as the following quote from an order of 08.04.1944 shows:

" Use of armor units: 2. Because the command of Panzer divisions outside the framework of the Panzer corps is in many cases not yet mastered, the permanent training of all command organisms of the Army corps which do not belong to the mobile troops is urgently necessary. The officer that is not trained in the command of these units tends to the fragmented use. He forgets easily in crisises that tanks and Panzergrenadiere belong indivisibly together. If one takes the tanks away from a Panzer division, then one robs it from its decisive thrust power and intentionally makes their use without their usual backbone ineffective. Short detachments to the mobile troops will help best here"(Annexe 3 to Obkdo H.Gr Nordukraine Ia Nr 1633/44 g.kdos v. 8.4.1944 as reproduced in 'Generalfeldmarshall Walter Model Dokumentation eines Soldatenlebens' Biblio Verlag 1991 p. 173)"Bruchmuller (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

After checking Newton's sources, Panzer battles by Mellenthin and Ordnung im Chaos by Balck, it turns out that the transferral of the panzerdivisions of XLVIII Panzercorps to III Panzercorps and the putting XLVIII Panzer corps  in charge of infantrydivisions  preceded the diasagreement with Model about the conduct of defense which is not surprising as it is a disagreement about how to hold a defenseline by infantry. In addition, both Balck( in Ordnung im Chaos) and Mellenthin mention that Model finally agreed with them. There is no mention of a punishment of XLVIII Panzer corps in Balck and Mellenthin. Better to leave out the whole piece as Newton's statements are a at least a partial misrepresentation of Balck and Mellenthin. Bruchmuller (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Conversion to
This article is a good candidate for conversion to templates, as it already is using Harvard style citations and is sourced almost exclusively to books. Using the sfn template means that the tags can be omitted, and any citations that are used more than once are automatically collated. Improvements can be undertaken with online sources as well. If there are no objections, the work will be started sometime in the next week or two. Please post any comments or discussion in the meantime. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not up to FA levels
A quick scans shows that this article is not up to modern FA levels: numerous paragraphs, more than ten, are missing citations. With this, this wouldn't even pass a modern milhist B-class review. As such, I intend to have this reviewed and delisted through WP:FAR, through I'd be of course happier if it was improved beforehand, making this unnecessary. Ping 2007 FAC discussion participants: User:Hongooi, User:Mercenary2k, User:Mcattell, User:Leithp, User:SandyGeorgia and major contributors User:Bardrick, User:MisterBee1966, User:Knispel. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The FA promotion predates my active participation on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I do not have access to the key sources used in building this article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Swine
"When he departed Army Group North in March 1944 after being sent to Ukraine, the army group's chief of staff remarked: "Schweinfurt (Schweinfurt is a city in Bavaria. Schwein fort would mean the pig is gone." (the swine is gone)." (sic) There's a source, but it's a book; the next sentence states that he had a relevant nickname but I struggle to parse that sentence. Did the army group's chief of staff simply say "Schweinfurt!", and the rest of the sentence is just a mangled attempt to explain the reference? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * While I'm at it, two paragraphs down: "The statement that he was no strategist can be agreed to because the conditions for that existed for no general in the Third Reich(what?)." (sic). I assume this became featured article in 2005 and hasn't been reviewed since then. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Jonas Vinther
Here is some comments for improvements.

Hope you find some of these comments useful. Peace. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but the current caption for File:Walter Model April 1943.jpg says "Walter Model, The Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords. 2 April 1943". That strikes me as very lax. Shouldn't it say something more like "Walter Model wearing his Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords, April 1943"?
 * "was a German general and later field marshal during World War II" - Why not just write "was a field marshal during World War II"? Isn't the general addition somewhat unnecessary?
 * The "1910–1945" mention in the infobox should be written in accordance with MOS:DATEFORMAT and WP:DATERANGE
 * The "Generalfeldmarschall" addition in the infobox should be written in italics per MOS:FOREIGN
 * "In World War I, the 52nd Infantry formed part of the 5th Division, fighting on the Western Front" - I'm pretty sure this does not grammarly make sense.
 * "that the river crossing cost scarcely any casualties" - Shouldn't "cost" be "costed"?
 * "in which he impressed on his men that speed was everything" - Saying this sentence out loud to yourself with the "on" addition sounds wrong. Shouldn't "on" be removed?
 * I also feel the caption of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2005-1017-519, Russland, Generaloberst Model vor Sluzk.jpg is wrong. It says "Model (centre) as Commander of the 3rd Panzer Division on the Eastern Front in discussion with Buchterkirch, July 1941". How about changing it to something like "Model (centre) in discussion with Ernst-Georg Buchterkirch on the Eastern Front, July 1941".
 * "Model was promoted to general of panzer troops (lieutenant general)" - I propose reformulating this to "Model was promoted to lieutenant general (General der Panzertruppe)" so as to match how the article elsewhere states his titles and promotions.
 * "Just as the Germans had made that decision" - I recommend changing this to "Just as the Germans had made the halt decision" as I think it's more clear.
 * "If he had hoped to gain an advantage by waiting for reinforcements, he had made a critical error" - This comes off as a sentence written from a personal point of view.
 * "Model's relief was not a sign that he had lost Hitler's confidence, but rather that he had gained it" - This also seems to be a personal point of view.
 * The "Ukraine and Poland" section starts off the three first paragraphs without a single year mention, so how is the reader supposed to know what year "30 March", "28 June", "3 July", and "12 July" is referring to since it's a new section?
 * "representing the last strategic reserve of the crumbling III Reich" - Why use such a strange reference as "III Reich" instead of "Nazi Germany or "Third Reich". I don't think I've ever seen the wording "III Reich" on any other Nazi Germany-related article.
 * "Schweinfurt (Schweinfurt is a city in Bavaria. Schwein fort would mean the pig is gone." (the swine is gone)" - I don't mentioning all this is necessary. How about just writing "the swine is gone"?
 * "What Model possessed was an excellent tactical mind, especially when on the defensive" - Again, this strikes me as a POV wording.
 * "His approach was not pretty" - POV.
 * "Model's decision to take his own life was less to do with matters of honour or Soviet retribution" - POV
 * The ranks mentioned in German in the "Summary of career" section should be written in italics per MOS:FOREIGN. And also, instead of writing "22 August 1910: Leutnant" - I suggest writing "Leutnant (lieutenant) - 22 August 1910".
 * After a brief discussion with one of the articles major contributors, I have implemented must of the points above and more I spotted in the process. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Von Mellenthin
Friedrich von Mellenthin's 1977 book is used twice in the article, to support these two passages:


 * For this operation Model had at his disposal Sixth SS Panzer Army, Fifth Panzer Army and Seventh Army, including a dozen panzer and panzergrenadier divisions, representing the last strategic reserve of the crumbling Third Reich. Despite his misgivings, Model threw himself into the task with his usual energy, cracking down on any defeatism he might find. A staff officer complained about shortages, causing him to snap: "If you need anything, take it from the Americans".


 * It has been argued that the best explanation for Model's behaviour and suicide is that he was not necessarily a Nazi, but an authoritarian militarist who saw in Hitler the strong leader that Germany needed. This characterized many in the German officer corps, but in Model's case it was accompanied by a cynical willingness to placate the Nazi regime to expedite his own goals, and a complete internalisation of the image of the professional, apolitical soldier. He had dedicated his life to the army, whether the Reichswehr or the Wehrmacht, and in his final days in the Ruhr, more than one observer had detected in him a struggle to cope with the fact that its destruction was imminent.

As a fellow general, von Mellenthin should not be used as a source to comment on Model's state of mind, at least not without the classification as such. Since two sources are used, it's not clear what comes from Newton and what comes from Mellenthin, i.e. the statements around 'professional, apolitical soldier' and 'misgivings.' I suggest Mellenthin be removed and, if someone has Newton, can the statements be cross-checked against him?

-- K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added for von Mellentin's cites. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Proposed edits:


 * For this operation Model had at his disposal Sixth SS Panzer Army, Fifth Panzer Army and Seventh Army. These armies, with over 2,000 panzers and 2,000 airplanes represented the last strategic reserve of the crumbling Third Reich. Despite his misgivings, Model threw himself into the task with his usual energy, cracking down on any defeatism he might find. When a staff officer complained about shortages, Model snapped: "If you need anything, take it from the Americans".


 * To address the second para, I propose to expand the edit to the preceding sentence which I included above as well and attribute it to Newton; that removed the weasel phrase "it has been argued..." The relevant pages are 363-365, unlike the range given above. Pages 349-359 deal with the Ruhr Pocket, and pages 360-362 provide Newton's assessment of Model as tactician and strategist. I removed "suicide" from the explanation as Newton gives a different reason for it.


 * Model's biographer, the military historian Steven Newton, argued that the best explanation for Model's behaviour is that he was not necessarily a Nazi, but an authoritarian militarist who saw in Hitler the strong leader that Germany needed. According to Newton, Model saw himself as the professional, apolitical soldier; he possessed a strong sense of German nationalism, with the accompanying tenets of racial prejudice against Slavs and Jews. This characterized many in the German officer corps, but in Model's case it was accompanied by a cynical willingness to placate the Nazi regime to expedite his own goals.


 * Any objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Paul Carell
Paul Carell's 1966 book is used for numerous cites throughout the article:


 * After the fall of Smolensk, Hitler ordered a change of direction, and Guderian's panzer group turned south into Ukraine. Its objective was to trap the Soviet forces defending Kiev, an unsupported advance of 275 km (172 mi), and again 3rd Panzer would form the spearhead. From 24 August to 14 September, Model conducted a lightning thrust into the rear of the Soviet Southwestern Front, in which he impressed his men and convinced them that speed was everything. The manoeuver reached its conclusion when 3rd Panzer made contact with the 16th Panzer Division from Army Group South at Lokhvitsa. While it would take several more days to eliminate all resistance, the trap around Kiev had been closed.


 * Throughout the opening stages of Barbarossa, Model had driven his men hard, achieving the rapid pace of advance that Guderian called for. He had taken great risks: at one point 3rd Panzer had only 10 tanks operational,.


 * There is a popular anecdote concerning his arrival at army headquarters in Sychevka on 18 January. He swept into the operations room without ceremony, examined the situation map while polishing his monocle, and finally pronounced the army's predicament to be "rather a mess". When informed by Lieutenant Colonel Blaurock that his current plans extended no further than pushing the Russians away from the rail line, he demanded a counterattack with the final goal of "strike the Russian flank and catch them in a strangle-hold". When the astounded Blaurock inquired "And what, Herr General, have you brought us for this operation?", Model looked him severely and responded "Myself!" before bursting into laughter.


 * That said, he did not simply treat these reserve units as disposable. In early 1942, the Der Führer Regiment of the 2nd SS Division Das Reich was reduced to a handful of men in three weeks of bitter fighting—but in that time it also received reinforcements including 88 mm guns, artillery pieces, and StuG III assault guns, and Model himself visited the sector daily, calculating the minimum support that would be needed to hold off the Soviet attacks.


 * His visits to the front may not have helped operational efficiency, but they energized his men, who consistently held him in much higher regard than did his officers. As commanding general of Ninth Army he was once recorded as personally leading a battalion attack against a Soviet position, pistol in hand.

He cannot be considered a WP:RS source as being too close to the subject of the article. I suggest that Carell be removed as source (and the dubious material attributed solely to him - took great risks, energized his men, etc - be deleted) and an then an attempt be made at untangling what comes from Newton and what comes from Carell.

--- K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed where possible; I put tag where Carell was commingled with Newton. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have procured Newton, and I propose the following changes for the affected areas:


 * After the fall of Smolensk, Hitler ordered a change of direction, and Guderian's panzer group turned south into Ukraine. Its objective was to trap the Soviet forces defending Kiev, an unsupported advance of 275 km (172 mi), and again 3rd Panzer would form the spearhead. From 24 August to 14 September, Model conducted a lightning thrust into the rear of the Soviet Southwestern Front. The manoeuver reached its conclusion when 3rd Panzer made contact with the 16th Panzer Division from Army Group South at Lokhvitsa. While it would take several more days to eliminate all resistance, the trap around Kiev had been closed. [ Rm "in which he impressed his men and convinced them that speed was everything"]


 * That said, he did not simply treat these reserve units as disposable. In early 1942, the Der Führer Regiment of the 2nd SS Division Das Reich was reduced to a handful of men in three weeks of bitter fighting—but in that time it also received reinforcements including 88 mm guns, artillery pieces, and StuG III assault guns, and Model himself visited the sector daily, calculating the minimum support that would be needed to hold off the Soviet attacks. [No change.]

Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski, Berger
I suggest removing these two books from Further reading; the first one is WP:SELFPUBLISH and the other is from a dubious author Franz Kurowski:



Suggestions / feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit
I removed the Wehrmachtbericht mentioned: diff. For a high-ranking commander, it's nothing unusual to be mentioned in a propaganda broadcast. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

March 13 edit
I undid the change; the edit summary appears to be pointy & not specific to how it improves the article: If there are specific objections to these edits, please discuss on Talk. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "useless deletions by someone who seems to enjoy wiping our information on awards.
 * You operated on the basis "delete first and ask questions later" which is contradictory to wikipedia policy. You have contributors who reverted your edit and don't agree with it (have objections). You have to find consensus for this edit (deletions of information and details and restructuring) or else you're engaged in edit war. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Please do find consensus first and then you are freely to revert to your own version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.139.45 (talk • contribs)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Walter-model.jpg

Reason for suicide (lead)
After headline "Suicide" - "His decision to commit suicide was sealed..." stands to reason. But to state he committed suicide in order to avoid prosecution in the USSR (during the final weeks of the war, at the front... ?) Who can know that ? And no source given either... Removed. (jumping subject ->) Norman Davies (Europe at War) writes a few interesting lines on Model as general at the battlefield. Boeing720 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Field Marshal - when ?
I think I've read, after Friedrich Paulus promotion to Field Marshal at Stalingrad, and as he was taken prisoner by the Red Army, Hitler then said "This is the last time I promoted a Field Marshal during this war", disappointed on Paulus , as the first German Field Marshal taken prisoner ever. But Hitler didn't keep this word this time either ? Are we certain Model was promoted as later as in 1944 ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Otto Moritz Walter Model.jpg

Reversal of December 29
I reinstated my earlier edit but made sure to retain the quotebox I deleted the first time around. Please know that my edit is mostly aimed at polishing and MOS-compliance, and I sometimes make a judgement call on whether or not to repurpose or remove something. Perhaps I made a bad judgement call this time, and so I apologize if I overdid it! Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 13:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear friend Jay D. Easy, what a kind message. I am very grateful. I guess I didn’t really appreciate the benefit of your edit so maybe I could encourage you to write a full edit summary when you’re making a big change. Thanks again. All good wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Replaced vs Vice
So, we had this passage at the beginning of the Battle of Moscow section|

which I changed to

but an editor,, rolled it back, fine, so let's talk about it.

The two passages say the same thing, but "vice" is the Latin term for "replaced" (pretty much). WIktionary doesn't say that the Latin term is or was commonly used in German, altho maybe. Even so, would prefer to replace the Latin term with the English one, as it is clearer.Herostratus (talk) Herostratus (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an English word. It is customarily used in the sense of an officer succeeding to a position. eg In military parlance, "replaced" would imply that Reinhardt had been relieved, whereas he had been promoted to command Panzergruppe 3 vice Hoth. If you feel "vice" is too accurate, perhaps "in succession to"?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, but English or no it's not common, I'd never seen it for instance. And anyway, the expanded the passage is "... Model was placed in command of XLI Panzer Corps vice Georg-Hans Reinhardt, who stepped up to command of the 3rd Panzer Group". But yeah "succeeding" would maybe be the right word. Herostratus (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)