Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bombing of Obersalzberg/archive1

Bombing of Obersalzberg

 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This article covers a massive air raid conducted against Hitler's personal home and the homes of the Nazi elite in the last days of World War II. The Obersalzberg complex was a key command centre for the German Government during World War II, with Hitler spending much of the war there. In April 1945 the Allies became concerned, wrongly as it turned out, that Hitler and other senior figures would lead a last stand in the Alps from Obersalzberg. This contributed to a decision to level the place in an attack which involved over 350 heavy bombers. The air raid was successful, and much celebrated at the time. However, it is little remembered today.

I developed this article after being intrigued by brief mentions of an attack on Obersalzberg in many histories of the air war over Europe. I'm confident that I've drawn on all the key sources, though some will be tricky to access at the moment due to COVID-19 related closures of libraries. The article was assessed as a GA in October last year, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in December. It has since been expanded, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
I reviewed this at GAN, and frankly couldn't find much then. This is up to your usual high standard, Nick. I managed to find a few minor nitpicks: That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * suggest including in the lead that Hitler was in Berlin at the time, but Göring was present and survived
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * you could link anti-aircraft guns
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * German G government, there is another instance of this
 * I think that the capital G is OK as this was an institution. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * who are Oliver Haller and Despina Stratigakos? historians? authors?
 * The sentence before this notes that they're historians, but this is a good point: I've tweaked to note that this is the views of two historians. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * not sure about the redlinking of secondary targets, is this really a notable subject?
 * Unlinked Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * you could link Squadron (aviation)
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * for German air force suggest Luftwaffe and link
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * strictly speaking, Austria didn't exist after the Anschluss, it was just southern Germany
 * I've linked Austria under National Socialism here Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * N neo-Nazi
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Bavarian G government, there are two examples
 * As above, I think this is OK Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * is there an ISSN/JSTOR etc for Canadian Military History?
 * Added Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the sources are of high quality and reliable, spotchecks not conducted due to Nick's long history at FAC
 * I'm still keen for a photo of the undamaged Berghof be included in the Planning section, per my GAN comment. I don't think the propaganda angle outweighs the encyclopaedic value of showing a primary target of this operation
 * I'm not sure there's a suitable photo - the best image (that used in the Berghof (residence) infobox) only really shows the entry gate. The photo of Hitler with Chamberlain illustrates the propaganda value of the place. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Supporting.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

All images are free + relevant. There was a sandwiching issue that I encountered between the infobox and the first image, but I fixed it by moving the image down a paragraph.
 * Image review—pass

Drive-by comment—some of the paragraphs are a bit short and you might consider combining to improve flow. In particular, I would join "The only attack on Berchtesgaden prior to April 1945..." to the previous paragraph. buidhe 08:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Most image licences seem OK, but I have a question about File:Goering House, October 14, 1948 (5491626123).jpg - are we sure that the Church Archives hold the copyright to the image? ALT text seems good to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. The Church's archives state that the photographer was in Europe on church work when the photo was taken, and it ended up in its archives with the church publishing it under a Wikipedia-friendly licence. Re the short para, as it covers a different topic from the previous para, I'd prefer to keep it seperate. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7
The article looks great to me, so all I have is a series of suggestions and stylistic tweaks. Feel free to ignore.
 * "During the period in which Germany was ruled by the Nazi Party," You could say when this was
 * I think that's reasonably well known? I've added a link here to Nazi Germany to help readers. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Prior to the outbreak of World War II, Hitler hosted many" Change "Hitler" to "he" to avoid repetition.
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "The complex was also defended by anti-aircraft guns" Delete "also"; the tunnels and bunkers were not defending the complex
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "The RAF developed a plan to attack Obersalzberg that was designated "Hellbound"." The abbreviation "RAF" has not yet been defined. More importantly, it is not clear if this was the same plan as discussed below regarding the USAAF. If not, suggest ending the paragraph here and adding the last two lines about SOE, thereby separating the two, so one paragraph is about the british and the next about the Americans
 * The source is a bit unclear unfortunately, and what the article states basically summarises this. From reading it literally, it seems that the RAF "Hellbound" plan was to be executed by the 15th Air Force, but the source doesn't say why the RAF was doing planning for the USAAF which I think would have been fairly unusual. The RAF's greater expertise in deep penetration raids into Germany than the 15th Air Force's (which I think focused mainly on Austria and Italy) might explain this, but unfortunately it's unclear. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "eight USAAF Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter bombers" Do you know which unit these were from?
 * The Fifteenth Air Force - clarified. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "The second primary target was the Berghof." delete "primary target" to remove repetition and improve flow.
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "A number of other buildings were located in the target area." Delete "A number of".
 * Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "The bombers orbited" Circled?
 * "Orbited" is generally used in works on aviation, especially for military aircraft. I've linked to that article - thanks for noting it. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Canadian Military History's ISSN is 1195-8472
 * Again, the article looks fine to me. I support its promotion to featured status.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding here - COVID-related work priorities took up a lot of my time this week. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Nb. I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

I reviewed this at ACR and could only find nit picks.


 * "air superiority"; shouldn't that be 'air supremacy'?
 * The source uses "air superiority", and notes that the Luftwaffe was on some specific occasions still able to put up a fight so I don't think that "air supremacy" is supported here. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But in checking this I picked up something else, see below.


 * "The XV Corps captured the area on 4 May" Consider specifying 'US'.
 * Done
 * "the extent of this looting was unmatched by that in any other German town occupied by Allied forces" Really? Including any of those occupied by the Russians?
 * Yep, that's what the source says. After taking everything which was removable, American and French troops literally disassembled some of the buildings to take bits of them home, and Allied troops fought each other over "souvenirs". None of the sources mention any civilians coming to physical harm though, which was a big difference to the towns and cities the Soviets sacked. Obersalzberg was also obviously smaller than the big cities the Soviets looted less completely. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I see it as a fine distinction between "looting" and wanton destruction, but either way, fair enough.


 * "the seventh anniversary of death of Adolf Hitler" 'the'
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And those further nit picks are all I could find. Pretty much the perfect article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The article states "They were not fired on by anti-aircraft guns and, as the Luftwaffe had almost ceased to exist, no fighters attempted to intercept them." and cites Haller p. 13. I assume that you mean p. 8?
 * If so, the source doesn't seem to support either "They were not fired on by anti-aircraft guns" nor "as the Luftwaffe had almost ceased to exist, no fighters attempted to intercept them"; I am not sure that it supports "the Luftwaffe had almost ceased to exist", it does support "no fighters attempted to intercept them" but does not, to my mind, give the first as a reason for the second.
 * Could you check all of your references to Haller p.13. I suspect a typo. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that comment. This is on page 13 (I'm using the large page numbers, not the small ones). I've tweaked for clarity - the source notes that the bombers spent little time in German AA range, and the Luftwaffe was down to less than 200 fighters. I've double checked the other page 13 references, and found one that should have been page 14 and fixed it. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nick. Nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Source review

 * I checked Kaplan 2007: I don't think you have paraphrased enough here:
 * Article: The remnants of the Nazi-era buildings at Obersalzberg were destroyed by the Bavarian Government on 30 April 1952, the seventh anniversary of Adolf Hitler's suicide in Berlin, to stop neo-Nazi pilgrimages to the area.
 * Source: On 30 April 1952, the seven-year anniversary of Hitler's suicide, the Bavarian government razed the remaining Nazi buildings in the complexl, because the Berghof ruins had become an active neo-Nazi pilgrimage site.
 * Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Same goes for Grant 2013:
 * Article: They turned east towards their target upon reaching Lake Constance
 * Source: […]turning eastwards at Lake Constance toward their target
 * Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Givens 2014: nicely paraphrased, well done.
 * Haller 2011: a bit too close
 * Article: The first was the small Kehlsteinhaus pavilion (also known as the "Eagle's Nest"), which Hitler had occasionally used to host guests.
 * Source: The first British target was the Kehlsteinhaus. Referred to by the Allies as the “Eagle’s Nest,” […] built for Hitler to entertain dignitaries and guests.
 * Without going into irrelevant detail on this building (which is much mythologised but actually rarely used as Hitler disliked it), I'm not seeing how this can be tweaked. I think it's different-enough. Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree. Your sentence structure is too similar ("the first - Kehlsteinhaus - Eagle's Nest - Hitler - guests"). If you parrot the source's presentation of the events, it amounts to close paraphrasing, simple as that. Eisfbnore  (会話) 09:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please suggest an alternative then? Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not a native speaker of English, so I shall not venture to rewrite it directly. However, I note that the paragraph in which it appears consists of quite a few stubby, short lines (like "The second was the Berghof"). I think that the entire para could do with a radical rewrite, so that it doesn't hew so closely to Haller 2011. Eisfbnore  (会話) 12:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've re-approached this with less tired eyes, and tweaked the sentence. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Article: […]in the target area. These included the houses of other senior Nazis, a barracks used by the Waffen-SS units assigned to defend Obersalzberg and a hospital
 * Source: the target area contained Hitler’s residence as well as those of other Nazi officials, a hospital, a garage and barracks for the SS guards
 * Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Article: […]four of its crew were killed. The three other airmen were taken prisoner[…]
 * Source: Four airmen died. Three survived and were taken prisoner.
 * Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Article: The locations near Obersalzberg that were attacked included Freilassing, Hallein, Bad Reichenhall, Salzburg and Traunstein. Significant damage was inflicted on several train stations, gasworks and hospitals in these towns. More than 300 civilians were killed.
 * Source: The Americans also bombed communications targets in Traunstein, Reichenhall, Salzburg, Hallein, and Freilasing – all within close proximity to the Obersalzberg. These strikes resulted in over 300 civilian deaths and caused significant damage to rail stations, hospitals and infrastructure such as gasworks.
 * That seems different enough to me given that there's not much you can do with very concise material like this (I've looked for other sources on these attacks, but to no avail) - the ordering is different, and the wording more consise. I've tweaked "significant" to "considerable", which is probably clearer. Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Article: The attack was portrayed as forming part of the final efforts to defeat Hitler and Germany
 * Source: the bombing […] symbolized […] the final destruction of Nazism and its leader.
 * I'm not seeing the problem here - the wording is different, and I don't want to go too far from what the source states given the nature of what's being stated (e.g., how the attack was reported rather than what it actually was). Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't check any of the books; you may be able to guess why. Eisfbnore (会話) 08:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these checks Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He spent more than a third of 1944 there This is an odd sentence. The paragraph before this one has a sentence which states "Hitler usually spent more than a third of each year at Obersalzberg"?
 * Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the Royal Air Force's (RAF's) Bomber Command This is the second time we mention RAF here the maybe move Royal Air Force to this sentence "The RAF developed a plan to attack Obersalzberg"
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The former Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring What's a Reichsmarschall?
 * The term is linked. I'd rather not go into any details on Göring's position, as it was very complicated (e.g. he was nominally the second in charge of Germany and an important military commander, but had been totally sidelined for years and sacked by Hitler just before this raid). Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the approach flight, the last 250 miles (400 km) had to be Because this is more important for Germany than English-speaking Allies, I think we should metric units as the primary units.
 * The English language sources overwhelmingly use miles, etc, as is still fairly common for modern works on World War II. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Over 1,400 tons of bombs were released; Same as above. Also by MOS we should write long tons instead of ton. And we also need a convert.
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An aircraft from No. 460 Squadron RAAF was hit shortly Maybe introduce the RAAF first?
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Göring and the Reichsleiter Martin Bormann were destroyed What's a Reichsleiter?
 * The term is also linked - as with Göring, Bormann had an extremely complex role in the Nazi system. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Link for Bomber Command?
 * In the lead and the first time it's mentioned in the body of the article Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The US Army handed Obersalzberg to the Bavarian Government in 1996 Wait what? did the US Army still control the mountainside for more than 50 years? Why did they not give it up prior?
 * They continued to use it as a recreation centre during the Cold War. Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * defenders were unable to generate a smoke screen as they had exhausted Merge smoke screen?
 * I think it's usually two words. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * damage was inflicted on several train stations Remove the extra space.
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kaiser matias
Not a lot really to add that hasn't been said, but I have a few things:


 * In the lead, should there be a "the" before "RAF Bomber Command"? And seeing how RAF is spelled out later in the article, should it not be done so here too?
 * Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "The only attack on Berchtesgaden prior to April 1945 was made by eight Fifteenth Air Force Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter bombers on 20 February 1945." The "eight Fifteenth" is slightly awkward, what with the double numbers. Would it be possible to go with something like "eight Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter bombers of the Fifteenth Air Force"?
 * That's much better - tweaked. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Other than that don't see anything else here. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this review. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, looks good. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

--Ealdgyth (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)