User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2019/December

DYK for Heinz Guderian
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Nazi (and other) PRIMARY sources in WWII topics
Perhaps you could take a look at Talk:Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, where I asked about this a while back and next to nobody even cares to offer an opinion. Sigh. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume your comment is somewhat a follow-up to this: . Please be more careful about throwing accusations like these around. Not everyone who links to a German-language source is trying to use "Nazi" sources. This is what WP:CRYRACIST is about. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Using Nazis as source of history for Poland
Quick question-what do you think about Nazis who engaged in ethnic cleansing of Polish population being used to source Polish history on Wikipedia,in particular to demonstrate supposed German character of Polish territories and cities? In particular this guy Walter_Kuhn is used on couple of articles to source claims about Germans being dominant population.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If I may interject here - there is quite a difference between using the postwar work of a German academic who was a professor at the University of Hamburg and wrote most of his work on the Ostsiedlung after the war, and whatever advice he gave the SS on Nazi resettlement policy. He continued to publish until he died in 1981. Furthermore, no one denies that large numbers of German (and other Western European) immigrants formed large portions of the populations of Polish cities in High and Late Middle Ages. This does not "demonstrate supposed German character", especially as most of these German speakers assimilated into the Polish population, with the exception of course of those areas that were part of Germany until 1945, and even they weren't necessarily fully "Germanized" until well into the modern period, if at all. If your concern is Kuhn's precise numbers (which are now at least 40 years old, after all), then find a more recent source. Kuhn continues to be cited by scholars in the field, however, as I have demonstrated before.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * MyMoloboaccount appears to be taking a wiki-break, that's why I did not respond to them. I broadly agree with you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

 * Thank you; I appreciate it! Same to you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Nefarious phrases
Hi I came across this phrase cultural rescheduling when doing research. I was related to something to do with the sacking and burning of libraries of the very rich in Poland. These were the folk that left to the very end, and then they would show up and burn all the books, burn and destroy all paintings and religious and othger artefacts that couldn't be sold and the owners were rounded up and destroyed as well. When I first read it, I thought the impact of only two words was astounding, the whole meaning behind it, the weight of the words. I've looked for it since but I have not seen it. It obviously has a deeper meaning in that context. It brought it home.  scope_creep Talk  18:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for sharing; I was not familiar with this phrase. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...
... for improving article quality in December! There's a peer review open for Clara Schumann and a FAC for Jauchzet, frohlocket!, DYK? We miss Brian who would have helped. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Wilhelm Keitel
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit notes for Lviv pogroms (1941)
Nice article. I had a little trouble with some of the quotes; some notes: Interesting article. Please ping me for any follow up. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Don't throw away your weapons yet. Take them up. Destroy the enemy. (...) Muscovites, the Hungarians, the Jews—these are your enemies. Destroy them." I changed "Muscovites" to "Moscow" per the cited source.  If you want, you can put it back in as "[Muscovites]".  Also, the ellipsis (...) which denotes omitted text should either be in square brackets or unstyled.  MOS:ELLIPSIS says that square brackets can be placed around the ellipsis for clarity, but that this isn't normally done.  I'll leave it to you.  (There is a current discussion about this at MOS talk.)  Consider removing "Destroy the enemy." from the quote (extending the ellipsis), as it's a bit redundant with the closing "these are your enemies. Destroy them."
 * "on the Jews (...) who had always collaborated with the Bolsheviks" Here, again, the ellipsis should either be ... or [...]. I'm refraining from making the change myself as I'm in an ongoing discussion related to this style.
 * "helping the Ukrainian people liberate themselves from Muscovite occupation". I didn't spot this quote in the source.
 * Over the next two years both German and pro-Nazi Ukrainian press including Ukrains'ki shchodenni visti, Krakivs'ki visti and others, went on to describe horrific acts of chekist torture (real or imagined) with the number of Ukrainian casualties multiplied out of thin air, wrote historian John-Paul Himka. I wanted to rephrase "out of thin air" but did not spot where the source was describing this.
 * In the second paragraph of "In historical memory", I moved the sentence "After the opening of the Soviet archives"... to the end of the paragraph. I feel this fits the order of events a little better since the bulk of Hunczak and Shankovsky's work predates 1990, it keeps the OUN disinformation efforts together without a break, and ends the paragraph on a stronger note.
 * Do you think the section header "In historical memory" should have a stronger wording, like "Historical negationism"?
 * I just want to check: the article states that there were about 100,000 Jews in Lviv before WWII and about 160,000 at the time of the German invasion. Are those figures reliable?  Should there be a note to explain this growth?  Were these refugees from German-occupied Europe or did the Soviets displace Jews to Lviv?
 * Thank you; this was very helpful. I've corrected the issues that you identified. I was a bit hesitant to use "Historical negationism", as I don't recall this language in the sources I used. I went with the header of "Manipulation of historical memory". Hope this aligns with your suggestion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! That's very nice to hear. (You might be surprised how much pushback I've gotten from copy editing certain other articles.)  I think "Manipulation of historical memory" works.  Or maybe "Historical denials"? – Reidgreg (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Thank you! Same to you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

 * Thank you & same to you! --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

 * "distraction-free"? Unlikely :). Thank you and wishing the same to you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lviv pogroms (1941)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lviv pogroms (1941) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lviv pogroms (1941)
The article Lviv pogroms (1941) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lviv pogroms (1941) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kurt Meyer
Hello! Your submission of Kurt Meyer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Dear K.e.coffman, wishing you a most Merry Christmas! Congratulations for all your excellent work and for being mentioned in an academic article as one of the forces for good around here. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear K.e.coffman, thank you again for your message. Thank you, but I have already read the article, which sadly for me confirms what I already known for a long time, namely we have far too many Wehrmacht fanboys around here, which means we get articles that are impressively detailed on the technical aspects of things at least when comes to the German side, but are far weaker when it comes to the Wehrmacht's involvement in the "war of extermination". I was impressed that you got mentioned in the article as a force for the good, which I confirmed what I already knew, but it was nice to see an academic recognize your good work. I can say from personal experience that most historians have low opinion of this encyclopedia, so it is great honor when one of them recognizes your work. What the article didn't mention, but I think should have is that the appeal of the Wehrmacht cult together with closely related Waffen-SS cult is that of an image of masculine strength and power, which appeals to a certain type of men. One of the typical apologetic books by James Lucas, Hitler's Enforcers begins with the statement that the best sort of men are soldiers, and the Wehrmacht were the best soldiers, making them literally the best men in the entire world. That opening statement sets the tone for a book that offers highly admiring portraits of various Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS officers. I think the appeal of a super-tough "soldierly" masculinity explains why we get a number of Wehrmacht and even worse Waffen-SS fanboys who are not German nor even of German descent-my late father was certainly caught up with this cult of Prussian militarism in his later years, but as far as I aware, I have no German blood (through possible on the English side of my family that some of my distant ancestors were the Anglo-Saxons who crossed the North Sea from Germany to England). What they have in common is they really like the image of the tough guy soldier who is highly "professional" as he goes about killing people on the battlefield. There are so many articles around here that have as their subtext: "isn't amazing how skillful and good the Wehrmacht/Waffen-SS were at the business of war and how manly these guys were". The identification with the Wehrmacht can be seen in that articles on the Eastern Front always tell where what German army, corps, division, brigade etc were stationed while on the other side are simply described as "Soviets" or "Russians".


 * Which is why I like to congratulate you for being a force for the good, as somebody who resist the siren call of a cult that not only distorts the facts of history, but even the basic methodology of history. One of the basic rules of history is one has to consider all the consequences of something. Had Rommel won the Second Battle of El Alamein, German forces would entered the Nile river valley, where 95% of Egyptians live. Among those Egyptians were 75, 000 Jews, and in the rear of the Afrika Korps was Einsatzgruppe Egypt with orders to exterminate all the Egyptian Jews. Contrary to what some people are claiming here, Rommel had agreed to co-operate with Einsatzgruppe Egypt-the agreement settling out the co-operation for the "special tasks" in Egypt were almost word for word the same as the Heydrich-Wagner agreement of 1941 with the word Russia being replaced with Egypt. Losing the Battle of El Alamein was probably the best thing Rommel could have (unknowingly) done to maintain his reputation since if the Jews of Egypt were exterminated with his forces helping out, it would have been difficult for even his most ardent fans to maintain this image of the honorable and chivalrous general. Of course, Rommel didn't want to lose El Alamein, but he should have been happy that he did lose because he would never had this posthumous afterlife as a sort of hero if he had won. Without knowing it, the British, Indian, Australian, New Zealand, South African, Greek and French soldiers who won El Alamein saved the lives of 75, 000 people. Likewise, had the French forces won the Battle of the Meuse in 1940, then no French Jews would have been exterminated in 1942, and had the Soviet forces won the Battle of Kiev, there would have been no Babi Yar massacre. There are just a few examples of how people are violating the basic methodology of history by only looking at the narrow military consequences of a battle with no examination of the wider consequences. Indeed, it is striking the number of books, which put the Battle of Kiev in one chapter and the Babi Yar massacre which resulted from the German victory at Kiev in another chapter, in what seems to be a strategy to dissociate the Battle of Kiev from its consequences for the Jews of Kiev. The same is true about other aspects of the war as well; had the Japanese not taken Nanking, then there would have been no Rape of Nanking. There is no wrong per se about talking about the military consequences of a battle, but when you only limit yourself to that, you violating the rules of history. Which is why I think you are doing good work by maintaining the proper methodology of history by looking at all of the consequences of a given event for all of the people concerned. It is always tempting to break history up into boxes, but that is not how things really happened. This flawed methodology of putting the operational aspects of World War II into one box, and genocide into another box is really a strategy of dissociation meant to avoid looking at cause and effect. Leopold von Ranke once wrote that the historian must show wie es eigentlich gewesen, and you are living up to that maxim by breaking down the boxes Merry Christmas and Best Wishes for the New Year! --A.S. Brown (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kurt Meyer
The article Kurt Meyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kurt Meyer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job on this article. You should consider Joachim Peiper on your list of bringing up to GA status. But, the old villain time allocation, can always be an issue, I know. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wonder if you'd be interested in collaborating on the Peiper article. It could be a good project to jointly bring the article to GA. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought, it has been a long time since Nebe. One problem is I don’t have any bios on him directly. He is mentioned or discussed in works I have. Second, the good news is my divorce is finally final now, the bad news is my father has to go into a new Assisted Living facility tomorrow and I have to finish making arrangements and tend to other related matters. So time is not with me at this point. I wanted to explain to you why as oppose to just saying the old, “I don’t really have extra time, right now”. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've started on Peiper, but it's sucking me back into SS/Nazi party. For example, I found this article cited to "SS service record of Joachim Peiper". Not sure if digging further a good thing :). --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking it on. I wish I could help on this one. If you have Danny S. Parker books to use on Peiper and the Battle of the Bulge, they should help. I do not have either, unfortunately. The Junker article I do not recall, but there is no need for a stand alone article on that. Enjoy the holiday and take some time for something else. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはK.e.coffmanたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 03:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I appreciate it! Wishing you the same. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays text.png Hello K.e.coffman: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  18:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
 * I appreciate the thought. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

 * Thank you! As always, the same to you, sir. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lviv pogroms (1941)
The article Lviv pogroms (1941) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lviv pogroms (1941) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Kurt Meyer
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! Hello :K.e.coffman: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.