Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille

Untitled

"

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

It doesn't look like this article lists the total number of combat missions that Marseille flew. This is an important statistic which is mentioned in the first paragraphs of most articles concerning famous WWII pilots. Is this an oversight, or is his total number of missions unknown? If so, then an estimate should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.239.48 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Good spot! According to Obermaier he flew 382 combat missions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

Copy edit from the article: "A very controversial event in The Star of Africa, the fictionalized 1957 movie about his life, described an incident that occurred shortly after Marseille was presented the Swords to the Knight's Cross. The young Oberleutnant, while on visit in Germany, was presented with evidence of the Final Solution (Holocaust). Shocked by this information, he did not return to North Africa but went into hiding in Italy instead. Only after the Gestapo established his whereabouts and pressured him, did he return to his Geschwader. ^[1] Berger 1999, p. 210. ^[2] #tag:ref -The biographical film, Der Stern von Afrika, also known as The Star of Africa, was directed by Alfred Weidenmann and starred Joachim Hansen (actor) as Marseille.-group="Notes"."

• This contentious passage needs more authoritative reference sources to remain; make the case in this talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Recognizing the treatment of bios of dead people differs somewhat, I find relying on events in fictionalized accounts & mention of unsubstantiated rumors, no matter how well cited, are garbage that should be deleted with extreme prejudice. If it really happened, & you can really cite it from a genuinely reliable source, leave it in; otherwise, take it out; this isn't Fictional biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille, nor even The Star of Africa (& even at the Star page, it's garbage that impugns Marseille to no legitimate purpose, because we can't establish it actually happened). This is not a gossip column. Rumor has no place here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It certainly has the ring of BS about it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

Chaps, this has now been dealt with. It certainly was not BS!. Dapi89 (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Mistaken?

Hello my name is Rainer and I am from Germany.

I read the text of this article and I saw this sentence:

Conversion from Bf 109 E-7/trop to Bf 109 F-4/trop in München-Riem and Erdingen.

Riem is a part of the german city München ( munich ). In Riem was a big airport until 1992. I think this part of the sentence is correct.

But perhaps the second place ( Erdingen ) could be incorrect.

Erdingen is a little village near Köln ( cologne ). The distance between München-Riem and Erdingen is approximiately 450 kilometers. Why should the training be made at two places which are so far away from each other ? As far as I know Erdingen has never had an airport or airfield.

Maybe Erding was meant. Erding is a little city near the much bigger city München ( munich ). The distance between München-Riem and Erding is only 30 kilometers. And Erding has an airport since 1935.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fliegerhorst_Erding

Greetings from Germany. 84.150.20.213 (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Very good spot! Erding is correct. I checked Wübbe p. 47. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Cecil/Douglas Golding

I do believe that the SAAF ace shot down on Jun 3, 1942 which is listed here as Douglas Golding is actually Cecil Golding.

He disputes Marseille's six kills in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqVTw-WuVes

A webpage with some information on his career: http://cecilgolding.yolasite.com/

Nick3111997 (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Nick3111997

Unreliable sources tag

The article contains 35 citations to non RS Franz Kurowski -- pls see linked article. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable. You're not ruining this article. If you have a problem with Kurowksi then a solution can easily be made. But slapping tags all over it and removing information without just cause (never mind your much sought after "consensus'"), is not acceptable. Dapi89 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dapi89: I am concerned abut the revert; please see: When to remove maintenance tags. If Kurowski is reliable, please demonstrate so via reliable secondary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I hope you equally appreciate my concern at the changes.

I think that we have a similar agenda. If Kurowski is the cause of this editing conflict (or the main source) - there is no reason as to why it can't be resolved quickly. As a main contributor, I can say that all of the information given in the 25 citations that bare Kurowski's name, that none of it is controversial and can all be corroborated through other sources.

My solution is, to back up all the in-line citations from him via a second source (in some cases a third source). Or replace with another entirely. I think that would be fair. Dapi89 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That does not quite work; Kurowski is still non RS. Moreover, Heaton that's been added is WP:QS; pls see Talk:2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich#Heaton. In the piece that's being quoted, the author clearly has a bias; it's a non-neutral source. Please see a sample from Heaton:

• Heaton, Colin D. (January 1998). "Invasion of Yugoslavia: Waffen SS Captain Fritz Klingenberg and the Capture of Belgrade During World War II". Archived from the original on 25 April 2009. Retrieved 29 May 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

It does work. But even if you decide it doesn't, Kurowski can come out. I didn't say I'd finished here yet. And I can't find any information, whatsoever, that Colin Heaton is right wing or bias, or neo-Nazi. He is an academic of some respect. Your intuition doesn't count as criticism. Dapi89 (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I now also have concerns about Wubbe, with over 30 citations. It's published by Verlag Siegfried Bublies -- de:Verlag Bublies, "a small, extreme-right publisher from Beltheim".

For a general discussion on such sources, please see User talk:Hawkeye7#Neo-Nazi publications. I believe the Unreliable sources tag should be restored. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dapi89: Per BRD, pls advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't...........yet.

You need to do more than this. Who says this is a neo-fascist publisher? There are no citations in the article given for it. I have looked but not found any on the internet.

Even so, I still feel you're failing to understand that even if I was persuaded by your argument, I would seek to save the article through other sources. Marseille is a vastly visited topic, and I could do without Wubbe anyway. In fact, I could dispense with German authors altogether. You would also need to show that this information is controversial and or false.

We need more on the author and his views and more information about this publication. Dapi89 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The publisher has been accused of several things, I haven't seen any specific evidence of these accusations. Certainly, if true, they cannot be seen in Wubbe's writing. I'll do some more looking. Dapi89 (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dapi89: Re: Bublies Verlag, the de.wiki article states: "Scientists like Samuel Salzborn (2000), Fabian Virchow (2006) and Clemens Heni (2010) situate the publisher in the far right. The author and commentator Gerhard Schäfer (1999) and the journalist Andreas Breathes (2004) describe the publisher as extreme right-wing". This is cited in De.wiki.

Meanwhile, I suggest the tag be restored. The concern is not just about Wubbe, but Heaton and Kurowski as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already said that Kurowski can be taken out (mostly - except where the controversy about claims is added). At the moment, it appears Wubbe has published only one book and there is no evidence questioning his character. And let me say categorically: there is no concern whatsoever about Colin Heaton. He is an academic and any personal opinions you may have about him are not relevant . Dapi89 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dapi89: Wubbe's book was published by extreme right-wing publisher. This is not a publisher known for fact checking or neutral point of view. Please see WP:QS.

On Heaton, I was able to find his personal website: http://www.lewisheatonbooks.com/ I don't see academic credentials there. Where is he an academic at? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dapi89: -- I am restoring the tags since there has been no response. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it actually that hard to find out info about Heaton? Colin Heaton has written extensively on military history and the Second World War. A veteran of both the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps, he earned graduate degrees at Temple University and the University of Strathclyde Glasgow, Scotland. His work has included close liaison with veterans organizations throughout the U. S. and Europe. Currently a professor at American Military University, he is co-author of the Naval Institute Press book Nachtkrieg: The Evolution of Nocturnal Aerial Warfare, 1939-1945. http://www.usni.org/expert/colin-heaton Deamonpen (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, as I said, Heaton is a proven academic. No reliable information on this publisher promoting Neo-Nazi ideas, and there is no evidence Walter Wubbe is unreliable as an author.

Kurowski has to remain, as his name is indelibly linked to the claim controversy. Dapi89 (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I would not describe Heaton as an academic. He teaches at an online, for-profit "American Military University" -- I doubt that would qualify under WP:PROF. If Kurowski has to stay, the the unreliable sources tag has to stay as well. In addition, no proof has been offered that Wubbe is RS -- is the work published with an academic publisher? What sources does he cite? Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Your opinions of no interest to anyone.

It is absurd to ask us to prove the Wubbe is reliable: the onus is on you to prove he isn't. You're the one making the claims. You've been told on the Joachim Helbig article about trying using the reputation of the publisher against the author.

Kurowski can be used for personal information and he is connected to the controversy of the 15 September claims. He stays. That doesn't make the article unreliable. Dapi89 (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wubbe and sources. He uses archive material (Freiburg). Nothing is based in second-hand accounts. Dapi89 (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dapi89: Re: "It is absurd to ask us to prove the Wubbe is reliable: the onus is on you to prove he isn't" -- not so absurd. WP:RS includes the publisher into the consideration. Since this publisher has been called into question, the onus is on those who wish to include this potentially WP:QS source into the article. So far, we only have one editor's opinion that this source is reliable. What are the 3rd party sources that attest to the reliability?

WP:IRS states: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." One editor's opinion is not sufficient, I'm afraid, given the problematic nature of the publisher. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Part 2

You've been told before: the focus is on the author's reputation and quality of research. Trying to infer reliability (or not) by attacking the publisher is at best tendentious. Dapi89 (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I have asked before -- who attests to the author's reputation and quality of research? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Not you. Find a good source that tears him apart for neo-Nazi bias and that will be a start won't it. Dapi89 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wubbe

On Wubbe, here's input from an editor familiar with this work: The book is 20% text and 80% pictures and copies of the original documents plus newspaper clippings. Source: User talk:Dapi89/Archive 1#Hans Joachim Marseille. I.e. it's about 80% primary material, including unreliable war-time propaganda, and 20% commentary, also potentially unreliable given the slant of the publisher. The book was published by Verlag Siegfried Bublies -- de:Verlag Bublies, "a small, extreme-right publisher from Beltheim".

It's essentially a primary source and is generally not suitable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Overly detailed article

I just removed the verbatim inscription on the subject's memorial (including in German), and the next section I stumble on is "Absence from the Geschwader" with day by day accounting of the subject's leaves. The article appears to include indiscriminate amounts of information. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

One opinion of this kind in 10 years since this article reached Good article status is irrelevant. You need to do and show more than just decide for yourself, what is, and what isn't over-kill. Why is it? It is all relevant. Dapi89 (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dapi89: What is the encyclopedic reason for including the inscription?

The left side bears the insignia.

Hauptmann		Hauptmann
Hans-Joachim Marseille		Hans-Joachim Marseille
Inh. d. Eichenlaubs m. Schwertern		Recipient of the Oak Leaves with Swords
u. Brillanten zum Ritterkreuz		and Diamonds to the Knight’s Cross
Der höchsten Ital. Tapferkeitsmedaille		The highest Italian Medal of bravery
in Gold u.a. Auszeichnungen		in Gold and other Awards
Geb. 13 December 1919 gef. i. Derna i. Afrika 30 September 1942		Born 13 December 1919 killed in Derna in Africa 30 September 1942

References

• Wübbe, Walter (2001). Hauptmann Hans Joachim Marseille— Ein Jagdfliegerschicksal in Daten, Bildern und Dokumenten (in German). Schnellbach, Germany: Verlag Siegfried Bublies. ISBN 978-3-926584-78-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

This appears to be intricate detail and indiscriminate amount of information per WP:INFO. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It is akin to a mention in dispatches. It is used as such in British articles. Dapi89 (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the inscription from the memorial pyramid, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dapi89: Per BRD, please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dapi89: Please advise here as well. Is the verbatim inscription from the subject's memorial necessary? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Restored the tag as there has been no response in over 10 days. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

On this, I agree with K.e.coffman. Being detailed to that level is good only if there are controversies over the matter. How many wiki bio have inscriptions of their memorials written in their articles? I can see reasons in cases such as Empress Matilda when descriptions provide something unusual, or extraordinary recognition from their contemporary (in this case, that is her contemporaries saw the fact that she was daughter, wife and mother of three monarchs named Henry/Heinrich as significant and that these relationships having huge influence on the course of history). In the case of HJM, what is significant. I suggest the piece about the "Undefeated" epitaph to be kept, though. Deamonpen (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Deamonpen: Would you agree with the restoration of the "overly detailed" tag? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Deamonpen (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dapi89: Please see immediately above -- this is not just my opinion. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It has been explained, perceptions over overly detailed are nearly always in the eye of the beholder. You need to be clear about what exactly is overly detailed. It is a harder claim to make in an article about an individual than it is in others. What is it that presently exists in this article that is irrelevant to the life and military career of Marseille? Dapi89 (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

For starters, this inscription is excessive: The left side bears the insignia.

Hauptmann		Hauptmann
Hans-Joachim Marseille		Hans-Joachim Marseille
Inh. d. Eichenlaubs m. Schwertern		Recipient of the Oak Leaves with Swords
u. Brillanten zum Ritterkreuz		and Diamonds to the Knight’s Cross
Der höchsten Ital. Tapferkeitsmedaille		The highest Italian Medal of bravery
in Gold u.a. Auszeichnungen		in Gold and other Awards
Geb. 13 December 1919 gef. i. Derna i. Afrika 30 September 1942		Born 13 December 1919 killed in Derna in Africa 30 September 1942

I've never seen this in articles on other military figures of WWII. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

So what? That's not criteria for a complaint. Dapi89 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Including the inscription is indiscriminate. So is "absences from the unit". Does this answer the question? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No.

In fact, I have since found that your original assertion is untrue. Images of pilot graves are uploaded to their articles, not always with the inscriptions - if they cannot be read with the naked eye, and that is the point.

That's ludicrous! Indiscriminate? I'd say its specific. What is indiscriminate about including absences and the grave inscription (it isn't where his buried but it is his main memorial sight), on his Wikipedia page? You can't expect to be taken seriously when you post things like this. Dapi89 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Marseille and Nazism

Partial copy/paste from Talk:Der_Stern_von_Afrika#Rabidly_anti-Nazi:

Start copy/paste

(...) [The movie] failed to show Marseille' clear and obvious anti-Nazi views. Dapi89 (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"Clear and obvious anti-Nazi views" is quite a strong statement. What does this mean exactly? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Military History Research Office (Germany) (MGFA) published an evaluation of Marseille in early 2013 and came to the conclusion that "it is not known that Hans-Joachim Marseille has, through his overall actions or through a single outstanding deed, earned praise in the service for freedom and justice [as defined in the current guidelines for military tradition]" (es nicht bekannt ist, dass sich Hans-Joachim Marseille durch sein gesamtes Wirken oder durch eine herausragende Tat um Freiheit und Recht [im Sinne der heute geltenden Traditionsrichtlinien] verdient gemacht hat). [3] It also explicitly states that there is no academic biography of Marseille, and that "occasional attempts in the popular literature to suggest [...] an ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading" (Der gelegentliche in der populären Literatur unternommene Versuch, durch den Hinweis auf Marseilles unsoldatisches 'Draufgängertum' und seinen 'ehrlichen Charakter' eine ideologische Distanz zum Nationalsozialismus zu suggerieren, führt daher in die Irre). I would say that the MGFA as a source beats any number of popular press books. We may live in a postfactual world, but not yet on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

However MGFA doesn't state Marseille was a "fervent Nazi" either. I note that Chapman doesn't provide any footnotes or cites in his book as to the source of his view, and it was published before Heaton's biography. Chapman takes issue with the historical accuracy of the portrayal of the real Marseille, okay, if we are crossing the boundary into a discussion of historical accuracy then WP:DUE requires us to cite what military historians say about the real Marseille as well. --Nug (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Stephan has been told before that academics don't usually write biographies of lowly pilots. In Tate's case, he sought academic assistance. Mr Paris has already shown us how casual and careless he can be with his remarks. Dapi89 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I've read through the piece, and if Stephen thinks this "trumps" three biographers whose work he hasn't even seen, then I think that says it all. I agree with Nug. Plus, the information provided is nothing more than a series of assertions that offer no explanation let alone sources. Dapi89 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Military History Research Office (Germany) (MGFA) now an unreliable source as well? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to listen: They don't provide an explanation for their conclusions. Dapi89 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, given that we communicate (or at least try to ;-) in the written form, listening is a bit beside the point. But more seriously, of course the MGFA explains its reasoning. Have you read the report? While we are forbidden from WP:OR, that is exactly what we expect experts to do. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC) (...)

End copy/paste

To sum up the discussion above, is MGFA a reliable for statements such as:

• "it is not known that Hans-Joachim Marseille has, through his overall actions or through a single outstanding deed, earned praise in the service for freedom and justice [as defined in the current guidelines for military tradition]"
• "occasional attempts in the popular literature to suggest [...] an ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading"?

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

In respect to statement "occasional attempts in the popular literature to suggest [...] an ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading" MGFA cites the following books:

• Galland, Adolf; Luftwaffe. Die deutsche Luftwaffe von 1941-1945, Hamburg 1976.
• Musciano, Walter A.: Die berühmten Me 109 und ihre Piloten: 1939-1945, Augsburg 1994.
• Scherzer, Veit: Die Ritterkreuzträger. Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisemen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland Verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchivs, Ranis 2007.
• Kaplan, Philip: Fighter aces of the Luftwaffe in World War ll, Barnsley 2007.
• Walle, Heinrich: Hans-Joachim Marseille. Der „Stem von Afrika. ln: Militär und Geschichte. Bilder, Tatsachen, Hintergründe, Rastatt 2004, S. 6-18

The article does not appear to use these publications apart from Kaplan, and since the article doesn't use Kaplan to make any suggestions about Marseille's "ideological distance to National Socialism", I don't see any issue. Extrapolating that statement to other books not reviewed by the MGFA would be WP:SYNTH. --Nug (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That is an extremely odd and limited reading of the article. The MGFA makes a general statement about a class of literature. In no way does it restrict its claim to the sources explicitly listed. And it provides an explicit argument for that point, namely Es liegen keine wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse darüber vor, dass Marseille bereit und fähig gewesen ist, sich mit den ethischen Fragen des soldatischen Dienstes auseinanderzusetzen ("There are no scholarly results that indicate that Marseille was willing and able to deal with the ethic questions of a soldiers occupation"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

And, MGFA is a thoroughly reliable source for this statement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you think MGFA's claim isn't restricted to the sources they cite, do you have evidence to the contrary? What if, in fact, that was the sum total of their literature review? How do you know? I don't think it is possible to apply that opinion, likely formed on the basis of those handful of cited sources, to all sources future and past. I note that MGFA doesn't tackle the issue of whether or not Marseille was actually a Nazi, but rather say some sources that suggest an "ideological distance" to National Socialism are misleading. At what distance did it become misleading? It is all too vague to be useful, IMHO. Surely MGFA would know if Marseille was a card carrying member of the NSDAP, or even point to an issue of Völkischer Beobachter where he might have endorsed some tenet of Nazi ideology, at least. But nothing concrete is presented. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Then the contention is that, since MGFA did not specifically call out Heaton & Tate, the latter should be considered reliable for the interpretation of Marseille as "rabidly anti-Nazi" and him holding "clear and obvious anti-Nazi views"? Do I understand this right? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

"Rabidly anti-Nazi" is your own constructed strawman. This discussion started after you attempted to insert text claiming Marseille had "Nazi convictions" several times: [4], [5], [6], text which is clearly contradicted by several reliable sources.

Participating in the war on the side of Nazi Germany in the Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe doesn't automatically mean a person has "Nazi convictions". It has been established internationally that only those who were members of the NSDAP, the German SS or one of the many other Nazi affiliated organisations were in fact Nazis. Had Marseille survived the war he would have received a state pension along with thousands of other WW2 veterans. He might have even become the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, like WW2 German Luftwaffe fighter ace Johannes Steinhoff who is a recipient of the Oak Leaves and Swords to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Nobody accuses Steinhoff of having Nazi convictions. --Nug (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement "rabidly anti-Nazi" originated from editor Dapi89: "it is a firm fact, was Marseille rabidly anti-Nazi".

I've found this statement to be at odds with MGFA's assessment ("it is not known that Hans-Joachim Marseille has (...) earned praise in the service for freedom and justice"; "attempts suggest[ing] (...) an ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading" etc). I have been trying to clarify what the statement about said "firm fact" was based on. Perhaps editor Dapi can clarify. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement "rabidly anti-Nazi" isn't in the article nor is Dapi89 attempting to insert it into the article, so it is unclear what you are attempting to achieve here, don't turn this article talk page into a battleground between yourself and Dapi89. --Nug (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been established internationally that only those who were members of the NSDAP, the German SS or one of the many other Nazi affiliated organisations were in fact Nazis. - Please, give me a break. First of all, Marseille was a member of the Flieger-HJ. Does that make him a Nazi? I don't think so. On the other had, the Wehrgesetz of 21 May 1935 decreed that soldiers of the Wehrmacht were not allowed to be politically active. A party membership was suspended, as long as the individual served in the military. (§ 26) The logic behind that provision was that to serve in the Wehrmacht was a service to the Fatherland and thus a political activity. This changed only with a provision of 24 September 1944, in fact a reaction to the 20 July plot. Now party membership was allowed and the regime compelled every soldier to actively support the national socialist worldview. Thus there were not very many soldiers in the Third Reich who were members of the Nazi party or one of its affiliated organizations, but that does not mean that they were non-Nazi by definition. The notion of the non-political German soldier was nurtured after 1945, not at least by former generals' and admirals' memoirs. But it is a myth nonetheless. On this see the essay by Hans-Ulrich Thamer: Die Erosion einer Säule. Wehrmacht und NSDAP. In Müller/Volkmann, ed., Die Wehrmacht. Mythos und Realität. Munich 1999, pp. 420-35. A more recent essay by Jörg Hillmann Der Mythos vom unpolitischen Soldaten was published in M. Epkenhans, ed., Die Suche nach Orientierung in deutschen Streitkräften 1871 bis 1990. MGFA, Potsdam 2006, pp. 39-50.--Assayer (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Since Marseille died before the 20 July plot, he would have operated under the Wehrgesetz of 21 May 1935 that decreed soldiers of the Wehrmacht were not allowed to be politically active. Marseille wouldn't have been subjected to the post September 24 regime requirement that every soldier actively support the national socialist worldview, because he was dead. Thanks for confirming Marseille wasn't a Nazi. --Nug (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can in good faith claim that as a proper reading of Assayer's comment, nor how you can think that your reply is historically valid. By your logic, no German soldiers pre-1944 were Nazis. I don't think that remotely jibes with the general understanding of the situation, or indeed reality. From family history I'm sure that one of my grandfathers (a Luftwaffe pilot who was KIA in '1943) was both a ardent Nazi and a soldier on active duty. You might want to take a look at Clean Wehrmacht and/or Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners to get an idea how far Wehrmacht and general population were entwined with the Nazi regime. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't confuse the committing of atrocities with adherence to Nazism. Committing atrocities isn't an indicator of being a Nazi, go ask the victims of Japanese Imperial Army and the Red Army, or even the Armenians from an earlier period. To suggest that atrocities committed predominantly by the land forces of the Wehrmacht in Eastern Europe is an indicator of a North African based Luftwaffe pilot's Nazi convictions is as misleading as it is absurd. --Nug (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. I was not claiming that Marseille was a Nazi (I don't think I ever have - I'm arguing that the preponderance of evidence is that he was not an ardent/rabid/... anti-Nazi). I'm refuting your (apparent) argument that a Wehrmacht member before 1944 could not have been a Nazi because of the 1935 Wehrgesetz. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nug has a point here, although I doubt that he intended it that way. You did not have to be a staunch Nazi even to participate in the Holocaust. There has been ample research refuting Goldhagen's suggestion of elimininatory antisemitism. But neither is party membership the one and only indication for a person's ideological convictions nor does it necessarily betray the political motives behind his doings.--Assayer (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Evidence for Marseille's "anti-Nazi" stand

The article states: Later that month [= August 1942] Marseille was invited to another party function, despite his earlier stunt. Obergruppenführer Karl Wolff, of Personal Staff Reichsführer-SS, confirmed that during his visit Marseille overheard a conversation which mentioned crimes against the Jews and other people. What follows is a lengthy quote from Wolff, which I won't reproduce here. The whole thing is highly implausible. That event must have taken place between 1 August and 12 August 1942. It allegedly gathered most likely Göring, Axmann, Goebbels, but certainly Karl Wolff, Odilo Globocnik, Rudolf Höß, and Ernst Kaltenbrunner. I have not found any evidence, e.g. in Himmler's Dienstkalender, that supports the idea, that Globocnik and Höß were in Berlin in early August 1942. Heaton might have lost track of the dates anyway, because earlier in his book he summarizes the story: During an after-awards-ceremony festivity in Berlin in June 1942, when Hitler personally decorated him with the Oak Leaves and Swords to his Knight's Cross, Marseille overheard the truth about the fate of the Jews. This was confirmed by SS-Obergruppenführer Karl Friedrich Otto Wolff, last commander of the SS in Italy in 1945 and an early member of the Nazi Party, who was one of the early instigators of the Holocaust. (Star of Africa, 2012, p. 5) What is more, we are told to believe that at this social event Wolff and Globocnik openly talked about the "Operation Reinhard" and the newly erected extermination camps Sobibor and Treblinka. At that time "Operation Reinhard" was top secret (Geheime Reichssache). According to Kurt Gerstein, who met Globocnik in Lublin on 17 August 1942, Globocnik said: "This whole affair is one of the most secret things of all in this time, one can say the most secret of all. Whoever talks about it will be shot on the spot." Heaton's sources seem to be interviews with Karl Wolff conducted by Heaton himself in December 1983 and January 1984 (, which is well before he took his B.A. in history in 1997). Karl Wolff himself spent the last ten years of his life writing his memoirs and giving interviews. He travelled with the infamous Gerd Heidemann in search of Nazis like Klaus Barbie and was a consultant for the alleged Hitler diaries. (Kerstin von Lingen, Allen Dulles, pp. 26-7) Wolff did as much as he could to prove the validity of the diaries by supporting the legend of their origin and claimed that the diaries proved that Hitler never ordered the extermination of the Jews, thereby cleansing his and Wolff's reputation. Wolff wanted to appeal his sentence based upon the evidence of these diaries (Jochen von Lang, Top Nazi, p. 364) Further information is based on an undated interview with Ludwig Franzisket. In general the notes of Heaton's book point to interviews with veterans and personae like Hans Baur (unrelenting Nazi and also with HIAG after the war), Artur Axmann, and Leni Riefenstahl, most likely conducted by Heaton himself, although it remains unclear when these interviews were conducted and where there are deposited. Heaton also relies heavily on Franz Kurowski's biography, which does not add to his reliability. The whole book therefore is largely based upon flimsy and questionable evidence.

I'll give another example, why all these stories and the gossip are unreliable. Heaton claims Marseille refused to join the NSDAP (Nazi Party) when asked (op. cit., p. 4) That seems to refer to a story related to Heaton apparently by Eduard Neumann, according to which maybe Nikolaus von Below himself asked Marseille if he would consider to join the Nazi party. (op. cit, p. 124) As I explained earlier on this page, until 1944 no soldier of the Wehrmacht could become a member of the Nazi party. So there was nothing what Marseille could have refused. Heaton claims that Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich. In view of the effort and fate of the members of the 20 July plot that encapsulates Heaton's bias.

Many Marseille-biographers seem to hold the misconception that Jazz or Swing were outrightly banned in Nazi Germany. As scholars have noted, the Nazi attitude towards Jazz was inconsistent. In particular during WW II jazz gained popularity and initial radio bans were curtailed. Thus even music by Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and Benny Goodman was broadcasted as "relaxed, strongly rhythmic music". There were even government-sponsored German jazz bands. (Pamela M. Potter: Music in the Third Reich, in: Huener & Nicosia, eds., The Arts in Nazi Germany, 2006, pp. 95-6.) See Michael Kater (Different Drummers, 1992, pp. 126-130) on how the Deutsche Tanz- und Unterhaltungsorchester (German Dance and Entertainment Orchestra) was formed by Goebbels on Werner Mölders' instigation, who was himself an avid Glenn Miller fan.

Finally, Rafael Scheck is quoted at length, not with a text by his own, it appears, but with an interview, in which Scheck makes some general statements "without being familiar with Marseille" [!]. That's a highly dubious way to make a case for Marseille resisting Nazi ideals. In fact, Scheck is right when he speaks of "many nuances among the Germans of the Third Reich". As Clarence Lusane put it: I argue that Nazism’s racial agenda was complex, fluid, and contradictory as opposed to simple, straightforward, and unproblematic. A consensus reading of Nazism’s racial agenda reduces it to its most vulgar expression: the implementation of the “final solution” of mass extermination. In fact, the Nazi racial agenda, rhetoric, and practice changed over time, was unevenly applied and carried out, and was often contradictory, especially in the case of Afro-Germans and the experiences of other people of African descent. [...] [D]espite a vicious and unyielding determination to create an Aryan-only society, and an ongoing rhetoric of Negrophobia and antiblack racism, the Nazis did not deport or (initially) exterminate Afro-Germans and Africans, or remove them completely from German social life. In fact, in many cases, they were allowed to attend schools and work while Jews and Gypsies were not. More important, a perpetual debate in Nazi ruling circles on the black question extended through the entire dozen years of Nazi rule. These circumstances and occurrences demand a more complex reading of the will, capacity, and limits of the Nazis’ racial agenda. (Hitler's Black Victims, 2003, p. 5)

Btw, "Letulu" was actually Mathew Letuku, who stayed with JG 27 until 1944, then ended up in Stalag 17 a in Austria and later in Chartres. He was freed by the British Army in 1945. (Ian Gleeson, The Unknown Force, 1994, pp. 203ff.) He was invited by the German foreign ministry in 1984 to attend a meeting of the veterans of the German Afrikakorps (Wübbe, 2002, p. 396.) and was still alive in the mid 1990ies.

In short, the statement by the MGFA holds true, and most of what is presented in the section of the Wikipedia article should be moved to the "popular culture" section, because it is full of mystifications and fabulations.--Assayer (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Just opinion. You've written a lot, without saying anything at all. Dapi89 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

With regard to Gleeson; he seems to have misspelt the name and what is the evidence that he survived after 1984? All of this is OR to say the very least and is highly tendentious. Dapi89 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I could have written less, if there were less dubious claims in this article. Don't mess up OR with RS. Instead, you should ask yourself: How reliable is a book that relies heavily on lengthy, unflitered quotes from interviews with people like Wolff, Baur, and Riefenstahl? Why is there no proper documentation of those interviews? How reliable are interviews with veterans, i.e. Marseille's comrades? And more specific: Why didn't you just google "Letuku", to find out who is mispelling? Or, if that's too much to ask, why don't you just crosscheck this very article and the citations given? Would you also need some evidence, that Joseph Goebbels is not spelt "Josef Göbbels" like Heaton does? How reliable is a book, whose title got its hero's name wrong? Or is there anyone who seriously claims that Marseille was ever called "Hans" instead of "Hans-Joachim" or just "Jochen"? --Assayer (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not confused. You are. You've collated unrelated/indirect sources to try and challenge two biographers who specialise in this subject matter. That is OR, pure and simple. And all OR by annons off the Internet are, by nature, tendentious. I don't need to ask myself any questions about these sources. We know who they are and we trust them to use sources in the right way. I say again, you fail to prove whatever it is you type. How do you know that their comments are "unfiltered"? It's another assertion. And what was so controversial about their statements in relation to this particular individual? In any case, the personal views of people Marseille met are pertinent, no matter who they are. It would be different if they were talking about a controversial subject. In any case, you're guessing. About the names; I've seen a signed a signed photograph by the south African soldier. I will endeavour to track it down. The rest of this is just semantics. It goes to show how shallow ones arguments are when anot editor is reduced to criticising Heaton for deciding to shorten the name so the title isn't excessively long! And desribing Heaton's work as hero worship exposes only your own bias. If he were so basis, why does he regularly expose Marseille and JG 27 for over claiming? This really is getting ridiculous. Dapi89 (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I am challenging the reliability of the "biography" written up by Colin Heaton. There is nothing OR about that. That work is wrought with errors, badly edited, devoid of proper citations, based almost exclusively upon interviews conducted some forty years after the events (actually a guess, because these interviews are not documented) and its claims show that the author does not know much about the Nazi state. As to Heaton's approach, recte bias, let him speak for himself: [Marseille's] story is one of stirring emotion, controversy and enigmatic heroism, and is told by the men and women who knew him. The problem of over claiming is an issue within the militaria literature, because it matters: Who scored the most kills? Given the hagiographic nature of this particular work you may be a believer "to trust them to use sources in the right way", but I am not. I can tell which comments by veterans and old Nazis are unfiltered by the use of quotation marks. In Heaton's book whole paragraphs consist of such quotes. Are you seriously asking me, why reminiscences and anecdotes by friends, comrades and shady figures like Baur, Wolff and Riefenstahl are biased and unreliable? Yes, you are, but even you should notice, that Marseille's political convictions are controversial. Just read the MGFA's statement. But all that gossip stuff taken from Heaton's bio, some of which even "hero worshipper" Florian Berger, whom you consider to be "reliable", finds dubious, is written into the article as fact which gives it much more weight (and space) than the MGFA statement. That is not WP:NPOV.--Assayer (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There is when you try to use other sources to challenge his reliability as a whole. Add tendentious to that list when you consider they don't challenge him directly.

Wolff was no friend of Marseille and Berger does not find Heaton dubious, or even the Holocaust story to which I am assume you refer. The version Berger describes and rejects is very different to the one mentioned in Heaton's book. In any case, I'm tired of repeating myself. It's all opinion. The MFG comments are in the book, and so are all the others. We have a policy of inclusion here, especially when sources cannot be shown to be unreliable. Dapi89 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wolff is well known for obfuscating almost everything about the Third Reich. During his trial in the 1960ies he had denied any knowledge of the death camps. When the Hitler diaries began to emerge he was enthusiastic, because now there seemed to be proof that Hitler never ordered the extermination of the Jews. And that very same man told Colin Heaton (?) that he talked openly with Globocnik and others about Aktion Reinhard at some public reception? At some point he must have lied. Do you want to argue that Florian Berger writing in 1999 could have found a "book" dubious that was to be published in 2012? Sure, you could take the most esoteric book with most extraordinary claims and argue: We'll have to include those claims, because noone bothered to disprove them and so they cannot be disproved, all the while you ignore that these claims run counter to almost everything else that we know. But that's true with almost every WP:FRINGE. Since I didn't expect you to give in even to the most obvious evidence I took the issue to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Colin Heaton's biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille--Assayer (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation of sources is not "OR"; it's indeed expected and desired. Please see Identifying Reliable Sources & WP:OR. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It is when we have nothing but you and your friend's personal opinion. Dapi89 (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Der Stern von Afrika (movie)

Could someone clarify the purpose of this passage in the "Marseille and Nazism" section:

• Several popular biographies of Hans-Joachim Marseille have written about his distain for authority and for the National Socialist movement in general. This first came to the fore in Der Stern von Afrika (The Star of Africa), the fictionalised 1957 movie about his life, which described an incident that occurred shortly after Marseille was presented the Swords to the Knight's Cross. The young Oberleutnant, while on visit in Germany, was presented with evidence of the Final Solution (Holocaust). Shocked by this information, he did not return to North Africa but went into hiding in Italy instead. Only after the Gestapo established his whereabouts and pressured him did he return to his Geschwader. The film was directed by Alfred Weidenmann and starred Joachim Hansen (actor) as Marseille.

References

This passage appears to use the movie ("the first came to the fore") to suggest that Marseille had "distain for authority", if I'm reading this right. I suggest this paragraph be removed as it seems to use a fictionalised portrayal to discuss real-life traits of Marseille, and is confusing. Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

To me the paragraph suggests that this was somehow portrayed in the movie. It also seems to correspond to the Karl Wolff-episode retold later. Be that as it may, it must have escaped the reviewers and critics of the movie. The story goes, as far as I remember, that Marseille goes astray with his girlfriend in Italy (he is to receive an award by Mussolini), but decides to return to his Geschwader anyway, no mentioning of the Holocaust and no Gestapo pressure involved.--Assayer (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph is poorly structured and needs to be re-written. It is not clear whether the Berger reference relates to the movie or to the event. Heaton confirms that the Gestapo were looking for Marseille after he went AWOL in Italy, but doesn't mention the Holocaust as the cause. --Nug (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Berger is writing about the movie, not the event. The movie is not a factual representation of what actually happened - they never are. The story that Marseille found out about the Holocaust and went in to hiding is a creation of the movie. Recent research into this shows that will Marseille did come to know of something (see the article), it is unlikely he knew it's full extent for Wolff and his associates were only talking about Jews and Czech resistance fighters (and civilians). The conversation included the mention of concentration camps but it is not clear whether Marseille understood this to mean extermination centres (I am certain he knew what a concentration camp was). Quite why he went missing in Italy is unknown, as Heaton has found the records to show a Gestapo missing persons report was filed for Marseille in Italy. The movie deliberately links these two facts together, but it cannot be proven. Dapi89 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

To sum up, I don't see a need to include the discussion of the 1957 movie in the section "Marseille & Nazism". Would there be any concerns about removing this passage? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Mention of the movie should remain, as it gives the MGFA text some context. --Nug (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not following -- how does a fictional movie gives MGFA's statement context? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If Berger writes about the movie and that scene is not in the movie - in fact, in the movie Marseille goes sort of "into hiding", because he wants spend time with his girlfriend, she suggests desertion to survive and it is Marseille's friend Robert who reminds Marseille of his duty and his honor (interesting scene, but definitely no Gestapo involved) - what does that say about Berger's reliability as a source?--Assayer (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Since there's been no response from the editor who objected to the removal, I will move the content about the movie. The movie mention belongs in a "In popular culture" section. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Popular literature is a part of popular culture, are you saying that MGFA's statement about "occasional popular literature" doesn't apply to the movie? --Nug (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

MGFA makes a statement re "in the popular literature", which seems unlikely to refer to the movie. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed that part. Regardless of what Berger writes or not, such a scene is not featured in the movie anyway. The whole story was added as a "rumour" by an IP in 2008.[7] There is more to be written on Marseille in popular culture, so the section can be expanded.--Assayer (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Tags

I restored the tags -- the article is overly detailed as discussed above and concerns over sourcing (Wubbe, Berger etc) still remain. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted them. You have no justification for doing so. You've repeatedly failed on this article, and others, to show these researchers are unreliable. THis is no place for your point of view, and these tags are close to being disruptive. 14:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Caption and inline tags

Note: all photos produced by official photographers are propaganda by default (diff) -- that's a given, and not "POV", as claimed in the reverting edit summary. If an editor wishes to attach a different caption then this should be cited to a reliable source.

Unilateral removal of inline tags is not appropriate, especially with an edit summary "reverted last edit by Coffman. Clearly disruptive. Please see WP:BURDEN and WP:NPA.

This and similar actions are beginning to look like article ownership, which is not conducive to the collaborative editing environment. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The only obstruction to that goal is you. Agenda-driven edits are not welcome. More assertions, and no proof. Seems to be your modus operandi.

This is a desperate attempt to assert your will on this article, speaking of WP:OWN. Dapi89 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and speaking of the burden of proof, you are making the claim. Provide a citation. All the citation says is he was meeting Rommel, which he is. Dapi89 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I've had a glance at the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Among other things, it notes Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.

This is what you're doing. Dapi89 (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Aid for deaf users

Is there a problem providing listening aids to the deaf who may want to read these articles? Dapi89 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As can be seen in the edit, the following material was retained:

• "The head and shoulders of a young man, shown in semi-profile. He wears a military uniform with an Iron Cross displayed at the front of his white shirt collar."

The removed material consists of the following:

• His hair appears blond and short and combed back, his nose is long and straight, and his facial expression is determined; looking to the left of the camera.

I agree with the reverting editor that it consists of "OR/un-necessary interpretation". Unless we have a reliable source that comments on the portrait in these terms ("long and straight", "determined expression", etc), this is unsourced editorialising and is unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the germanophile sounding description: How does this work as a listening aid to the deaf anyway? To my understanding a deaf person has no use for a listening aid, first, because by the very definition of being deaf he most likely does not care much for listening, second, because deaf people are not necessarily illiterate and, third, because deaf people are not necessarily blind either and can look at the picture by themselves.--Assayer (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)