Talk:Albert Kesselring

How many vehicles?

"...40,000 men, but also 96,605 vehicles..." Each man would have had to drive more than 2 vehicles! Wouldn't the number be something like 10,000? Still impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.122.34.10 (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well spotted.

		The Minor Barnstar
		Award yourself a copy editing barnstar Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Aaagh. It was vandalism. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article

I suppose some might object to a Nazi military leader being portrayed as having so many good qualities. But for me, reading about Kesselring's life is a reminder of how sad it is that the state has sucked so many of the most talented individuals into careers where they serve as the enemies of human rights rather than the friends of it. There are many highly competent people of this type who, in Thoreau's words, "as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God." Most people just seem to go with the flow and, if they are inclined to work in the field of government or the military, will do so, regardless of the ethics of the political leadership. Tisane (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

His adoptive son

I just read through this article because it was featured and noticed something. The name of his adoptive son is given as "Ranier" which would be a really unusual name. Could this possibly be a typo and meant to be "Rainer" instead (which is a much more common name)? The German wikipedia does not mention the adoptive son's name so I could not verify that. Any thoughts? --Feuerrabe (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Where is the archived discussion? Did someone delete it? TwoBitSpecialist 17:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Look at the box at the top of the page that says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements..." yada yada. Down the bottom of that box, it says: "Archives: 1" Click on the "1". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Kesselring's book

Sorry for my english. There are two Kesselring's books in "Bibliography": Gedanken zum Zweiten Weltkrieg and A Soldier's Record. But most of the references indicates Kesselring's book The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring. This is it?--Totalserg (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same book. They changed the title for the 1988 edition, which has a preface by Kenneth Macksey. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring Add "Popular Culture References similar to Rommel#In_popular_culture

Keenly interested in the "Culture Refereences to military leaders whether Genneral Joseph Stilwell in the film 1941 (film) or Albert Kesselring in the film Which Way to the Front?.

Would like to sart an Albert Kesslering in Popular Culture section with this information

Kesselring and Kesselring's double were portrayed by Jerry Lewis in the 1970 movie "Which Way to the Front?." This film focused in a fictional manner Kesselring's command tenure in Italy. While Kesselring has been prortrayed in seconadry roles by second string actors in movies such as "Anzio" and the "Battle of Britain", the movie "Which Way to the Front?" is the only known movie to have Kesselring portrayed by someone in a leading and staring role.

ProSanta0001 (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As I and Hawkeye have said in edit summaries on the main article, anything in a Featured Article requires reliable sources, which YouTube and IMDB weren't last time I looked. I realise many famous people have pop culture sections in their articles, but they're not universally approved of by the community, certainly not when at FA-Class like this one. In any case, if we were to include portrayals of Kesselring in pop culture, I think the focus should be on serious ones like in Battle of Britain, even it wasn't by a major star. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

German language ranks

This is a good article but it typically uses ranks in German with the occasional English translation. Since these ranks are not in common English usage (like Gestapo or Luftwaffe) and also the English equivalents are not intuitive (i.e. generallmajor translates to brigadier and generalleutnant translates to major general) I am proposing to Anglicize the ranks (with appropriate translation and links at first instance of the word). This will make the article more understandable and easier to read for the non-specialist reader. I also think it is more in line with MOS:FOREIGN. I'll leave it for a day or two to see if anyone has a problem with this. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have several problems with it. First of all, the article is not a good article, it is a featured article, and has been through the FAC process. The article has appeared on the front page and has been subjected to extensive review. Changes should not be made without a broad consensus. Secondly, your translation is poor; generallmajor was definitely not the same as brigadier and Comparative officer ranks of World War II. This was all discussed before. If people want to know, then they can click on the links, and it will be explained in detail. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye, I accept your arguments about peer review. However, may I make the following points:

1) May I refer you to Comparative officer ranks of World War II? This clearly states that generalleutnant is equivalent to major general and generalmajor is equivalent to brigadier general even if literal translation of the words might suggest otherwise (and is confirmed in the equivalent article in the German language Wikipedia). Indeed, in this article itself (In the "Between the wars" section) the text reads "Generalmajor" (brigadier-general), "Generalleutnant (major-general)" and "General der Flieger (air lieutenant-general)" so there's nothing "poor" with my translation.

2) FAs are not set in stone. The box on the talk page clearly states that "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so". There is a long history of GAs and FAs being improved (or downgraded) as Wikipedia standards are raised over time.

3)My suggestion was that having an article peppered with foreign language ranks is confusing to the non-expert english language native speaker and is contrary to MOS:FOREIGN which states that "Foreign words should be used sparingly". My proposal to rectify this was therefore to anglicize all the ranks using the British English equivalents (rather than literal translations of the words). This would reverse the current situation: instead of having say "Generalmajor (brigadier-general)" on the first instance of the rank and then using "Generalmajor" on all subsequent instances, we would have "Brigadier-General (Generalmajor" at the first instance and then "Brigadier-General" on subsequent instances. This makes it more understandable to the general reader and follows a well established convention often used in English language books (for instance Dear and Foot's "Oxford Companion to World War II" always uses the English equivalent).

4)Clearly, if there is a consensus established contrary to this proposal I would accept it (which is why I opened this section on the talk page in the first place). I would be most interested to see any previous discussions surrounding this ("This was all discussed before").

Thanks for your input. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1. ) This is not the same thing. Moreover, the "equivalence" is very misleading. In the UK, a brigadier commanded a brigade an a major general a division; in the US Army, a colonel commanded a regiment (the equivalent of a British brigade), a brigadier general was deputy division commander (something they did not have in the British or German armies) and a major general commanded a division; in the German Army an oberst (colonel) commanded a regiment while a generalmajor commanded a division.
2. ) This would not be an improvement. We would sacrifice accuracy and get nothing in return.
3. ) No, that is terrible. Instead of one foreign rank that readers may not understand, you now have two. For the readers in my country are wholly unfamiliar with the foreign rank of brigadier general.
4. ) I am following the US and Australian official histories in using German ranks for the Germans. The consensus that we have was reached during the FAC. I was not entirely happy; I would have used the German ranks only. I had to read two books in German to write the article; the readers can learn a few words while reading. They are here to learn after all.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, honestly, don't hold back, tell us what you really think!! Maybe I'm misreading Antipodean directness for rudeness but rather than assert what rubbish my proposal is (WP:OWN?), wouldn't it be more polite and productive to direct me to where the debate took place that established the current consensus - I have already said I would accept an established consensus? The only evidence of a debate I can find is this exchange in the FAC:

I am going to apply WP:Bold here and change all instances of lieutenant colonel and above to the german corresponding rank. I previously changed all field marshal ranks in German field marshals articles to generalfeldmarschall Gsmgm (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Good! I'm quite happy with that. There was a bit of debate earlier as to whether using German would make the article harder for the general reade to follow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, it was a friendly proposal which I thought had merit but was prepared to be persuaded, I didn't expect a "Daddy knows best" response. Who needs aggro? There's plenty of other things to do in Wikipedia, so I'm off to do just that. G'bye.
P.S. Don't bother responding to this, it's just too wearing.
P.P.S. Your assertion as to what rank commands what unit/formation is overly dogmatic; there are endless exceptions (because the German army at the time, unlike Commonwealth armies, did not as a rule assign acting ranks in line with postings, the officer normally carried his substantive rank (although inevitably there were exceptions here too): for instance looking at the OOB of Army Group C in 1943, all the Corps commanders were General der .... and about half the divisional commanders were generalleutnant and half generalmajor.
Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Couple of observations

This article has just been mentioned indirectly on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history‎, so I thought I'd have a read. Interesting life. However, two things spring to mind. One is note 4, which apparently caps off a paragraph and is apparently used as a reference. Surely direct reference to the contents of The National Archives' holdings, unsupported by secondary sources, is original research?

The second point is the very last sentence of the article: "To his ageing troops, Kesselring remained a commander to be commemorated." This to my mind implies that all of Kesselring's surviving soldiers-in-arms commemorate him, rather than a number of veterans representing but two veterans' groups. It strikes me as cloyingly sentimental, and entirely the wrong note to end an otherwise excellent article. FWIW. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, primary sources are acceptable so long as they are only being used for facts. As for the second point, the implication is correct; the reference for Kesselring extends beyond just two groups. Von Lingen: "As far as Kesselring's surviving troops are concerned—and thanks partly to British intervention—their former commander's reputation remains unsullied." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Numbers of prisoners in Tunisia

If you do a check yourself at Wikipedia, you will see that my information makes the article more complete. The Albert Kesselring information in WW2 is reffering to all theaters and not only to 1943. Stalingrad for example takes place in 1942 and 1943, so we can make the comparision between an even bigger disaster like Operation Bagration is (see Wikipedia page) in 1944. Point is that your vision (Hawkeye) is to narrow. For sources, I provide gladly the next sources in which you will see that your view is incomplete, you mention the Ruhr Pocket that also comes second to Bagration in numbers of prisoners. At Sandhurst, Beevor thought us to compare and use our sources (of course not Wikipedia because of matters like these).

When you compare Stalingrad in an article about the colapse in Tunesia, you also should speak about the biggest defeat, it makes no sense to speak about the one that comes second (Stalingrad). Or, you don't compare at all, an incomplete comparision makes no sense. It is the one or the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad — Preceding unsigned comment added by History and skiwatch (talk • contribs) 06:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It was only supposed to mean that it would have looked like a greater disaster if it were not overshadowed by Stalingrad, which occurred around the same time. The source does not refer to 1944 or 45 at all. So I have removed the reference to Stalingrad to avoid giving the impression that either was the second biggest disaster. Say hi to Anthony for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Third-party sources needed

The article contains 17 citations to the subject's memoirs, including peacock language such as "greatly increased" and "succeeded". I will tag the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The article has passed FAC. I will remove. Provide sources yourself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I will have a look for something on the German logistics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem of Kesselring's birthday

I have seen several acceptably reliable sources including Zabecki ed. (2014) and Whitlock (2009) state that Kesselring was born on 20 November 1885. Meanwhile, the article here shows that his real birthdate was 30 November. As there are two different given birthdates and both confirmed by reliable sources, can we make it clear that the date 30 November is more correct than 20 November? Personally I think he belonged to the Sagittarius sign because of his optimistic appearance, but it needs to be checked.222.255.197.66 (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been."Some references erroneously give his birth date as 20 November. However, Kesselring testified under oath that it was 30 November 1885, the date in his Army personnel file." Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So how did the previous editors of the article get information from his Army personnel file, especially his birthdate? I have read the book of Macksey, but here he did not indicate that the birthdate was taken from Kesselring's Army personnel file at all.222.255.195.92 (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Kirsten von Lingen obtained it, and I was in contact with her. I also found it in the Nuremberg transcripts. I can't remember whose book got it wrong; it may have been Macksey. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that information! However, while I coud not find Kesselring's birthday in Lingen's book Kesselring's Last Battle, the book of Macksey which is being used as citation for Notes 2 of this article did not show his Army personnel file at all. Therefore, how can we add citation or evidence in order to strengthen the points shown in Notes 2?222.255.193.65 (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Nazi article!

The article is an apology for Kesselring and the Nazi War Machine, based on biased sources, and insufficient analysis. The whole thing of "British Military Common Law" is unheard of in jurisprudence, and the claim of illegality of the British trial is unfounded. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hardly. Do you have a reliable source for your assertion that the trials were on a solid legal basis? We can add it to the article, Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albert Kesselring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521025214/http://www.its-arolsen.org/en/news/news-2012/index.html?expand=7587&cHash=4f7a9abc8df30aea113dbbc58a9c689b to http://www.its-arolsen.org/en/news/news-2012/index.html?expand=7587&cHash=4f7a9abc8df30aea113dbbc58a9c689b
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205182410/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/kesselring.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/kesselring.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert Kesselring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819185432/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/03-13-46.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/03-13-46.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Featured article review

This article frankly does not meet the 2018 standards for FAs. As K.e.coffman pointed out above, the non-neutral language ("one of Nazi Germany's most skilful commanders") in the lede, and excessive citations from Kesselring's memoirs are unacceptable for a FA. I would put this up for featured article review myself, but I already have two articles under review. If the issues are not addressed, I'll be back to nominate this article later when the reviews I'm involved in finish up. Of course, if anyone else would like to nominate it for FAR, I would be happy to advise. Catrìona (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Other Generalfeldmarschalls

Who where the other Generalfeldmarschalls who published their memoirs? Shouldn't a note be made of these? Skjoldbro (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

If you'd aske3d on Quiz Night I would have said Keitel and Manstein without blinking. Now we'll have to dig up a source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"dangerous situation"

I modified the sentence here: [1], as it was making it sound that Kesselring was personally in danger, or that the German troops were in a "dangerous situation" which sounds a bit odd in a time of war. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

FTR, I certainly read it as the latter, and I don't think it sounds that odd in context, but it is somewhat editorialising so I have no objection to its removal as further detail appears in the following sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Feb 2019 edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "C/e; ol; rm pov material from the subject's memoirs and undue praise; mv nicknames out of the lead as not discussed in the body". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I already did, while "Reverted - take it to the talk page" is insufficiently specific. What changes do you object to? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Tweaking the wording is not acceptable. The wording has been carefully reviewed, and your proposed changes do not provide improvement. Changing infobox military person to infobox criminal is naked POV-pushing and is unacceptable. Removing the nicknames, which are sourced, is further POV-pushing. Important quotations and links were removed. Your proposed changes are rejected. Seek consensus for any changes you propose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"Tweaking the wording is not acceptable" -- huh? Changing to "Infobox criminal" with "Infobox military person" module is not POV pushing, as it results in no noticeable change in the military aspect of the infobox, but allows to add relevant fields to fully reflect the subject's career: Sample. The article was "carefully reviewed" back in 2009; new sources and perspective have come to light since then. Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

What new sources? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a new source (Blood), which was removed: [2]. In another example, the article is using a 1954 source to claim that the subject's "memoirs formed a valuable resource...". The article also continues to rely heavily on Kesselring's memoirs themselves, which I attempted to address here: [3], about

• "forging alliances with industrialists and aviation engineers";
• "[striving] to provide the best possible close air support";
• "the burden of preventing the Allied evacuation of Dunkirk";
• being "well aware that while this force was large enough..."
• "Although his command was already 'written off'..."
• "Kesselring felt that much more could have been accomplished if he had..."

and so on. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me help you. The main new scholarship has been a thorough German-Italian assessment of Italian citizens killed in anti-partisan fighting. That such a survey could be carried out is encouraging, but it still highlighted sensitivities. The final figure was higher than most previous estimates, bur still only a fraction of the number of civilians killed by Allied bombing. I had been meaning to incorporate this into the article. Turning to the points above:

• "forging alliances with industrialists and aviation engineers". The issue here is the complicity of German industrialists with the Nazi regime. Obviously, you cannot build aircraft without the cooperation of aircraft manufacturers, so I didn't think it needed another source, but it is a sensitive issue in your country, so we can locate an additional source.
• "the burden of preventing the Allied evacuation of Dunkirk" (You wrote:"It left to prevent") I hadn't thought this was controversial; the controversial bit is in the next clause: "hampered by poor flying weather and staunch opposition". I'm always skeptical of claims of defeat based on externalities like weather. We'll have another look.
• "Although his command was already written off". This is critical to the reader's understanding of the situation. The Germans had decided to withdraw from southern Italy. Kesselring had a mobile force and authorisation to conduct a fighting withdrawal; but he seizes an opportunity to go on the offensive. This is another part that could be sensitive in your country. But we can source easily enough."
• "Higher SS and Police Leader". You have mistranslated here. Wolff was not a Higher SS and Police Leader" (Höherer SS- und Polizeiführer), he was a Highest SS and Police Leader (Höchster SS- und Polizeiführer), a status shared only with Prützmann in Ukraine. Yet another issue that could be sensitive in your country.
• "Kesselring felt that" Obviously Kesselring is the only source we can have about his own thought; but it goes to the conflict over strategy between Kesselring and Rommel.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, I'm puzzled here--you use the singular in the condescending "Let me help you", and then the plural in the equally condescending "We'll have another look" (not just condescending--odd too; who's your partner?). While the grammatical number differs, these comments, indeed many of your comments here, share that condescending quality. I wish, I think we all wish, that you would drop that. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

That was not the point I was trying to make. These are the examples of parts of the articles reading like a Lost Cause of the Confederacy treatise. That being said,

1. are there objections to this version of the infobox?
2. why is there a reason to cite a 1954 source on Kesselring's memoirs? Is this the best source available?
3. why was Blood's Hitler's Bandit Hunters source removed [4]?

--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

1. We've been through changing the infoboxes before on Edmund Herring. Military figures use the military person infobox. If you want to change that infobox to add additional fields you should seek consensus in the appropriate forum. Note that the ArbCom Infoboxes case applies here.
2. I don't know what 1954 source you are referring to.
3. Blood was removed because the book was not used after the edit was reverted. This was because of multiple problems, including grammar, reference formatting and the use of an abbreviation that is not commonly known. I have restored a substantial part of the edit, with reference formatting corrected.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

What on earth is wrong with "forging alliances with industrialists and aviation engineers" or "Kesselring believed that first-hand knowledge of all aspects of aviation was crucial to being able to command airmen, although he was well aware that latecomers like himself did not impress the old pioneers or the young aviators"? Bizarre. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Please see follow-on discussion here: User_talk:Hawkeye7#Albert Kesselring. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

How does that answer the question above? (“Nominally”, I’d submit.) Qwirkle (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

"the article lacks neutrality in certain areas, through uncritical use of primary sources and a one-sided presentation". --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

But these do not seem to be the areas that lack neutrality or depend on uncritical use of primary sources. You are answering a particular question with a generality, which is seldom a good sign. Qwirkle (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, there is nothing in those sentence fragments that lends itself to that description. What specifically is wrong with them? Are they clearly incorrect? Do you have a reliable source that contradicts them? What "other side" needs to be presented? How, for example, can another side be presented regarding Kesselring's beliefs as expressed by him? It's illogical. And if you are having a discussion here, how about keeping it here instead of fragmenting it onto a user talk page and asking people to go there to follow it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

According to the template page, infobox criminal is "rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." Kesselring's notability is primarily due to: his rank (one of only three Luftwaffe Generalfeldmarschall's); award of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds; and the various high-level commands he held, particularly Commander-in-Chief South, but not for the Ardeatine massacre. If you want to use infobox criminal in this article, get consensus for it via a RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• There's no difference in how the infobox renders to the reader apart from the addition of several fields, such as
  • Known for: Ardeatine massacre
  • Criminal charge: War crimes
  • Penalty: Death penalty (commuted; released in 1953)

Sample. Compare with this version. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Which is to say, it is inaccurate, as was already addressed above. Kesselring isn’t “known for” any one particular incident or type of incident in the way that, say Willy Sutton is. Qwirkle (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

My two cents, I would consider there is a difference in the appearance of the infobox, due to the relative placement of those additional fields immediately below the image/dob/dod fields. This shouldn't be construed as trying minimise war crimes, but as PM points out, Kesselring's notability is largely from his military rank and high commands, not the Ardeatine massacre. The layout of the proposed infobox would suggest otherwise. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with PM. Kesselring is know for things other than one massacre. To reconfigure the infobox is to give undue weight. Intothatdarkness 18:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Intothatdarkness, yeah, only one massacre. How many massacres does one have to commit, pray tell? Or, do you have any idea how callous this sounds? Drmies (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion deals with adding a particular tag in an infobox, not your particular threshold for something. Do you have any idea how pretentious you sound? Seems the question has been resolved in any case, so your late comment isn't really contributing anything to the discussion. Intothatdarkness 21:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Also agree with PM as Kesselring was most known for his command in Italy. Kges1901 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Kesselring's role in war crimes is well known; there are two books written about Kesselring's trial and his crimes, such as Kesselring's Last Battle: War Crimes Trials and Cold War Politics, 1945-1960 and Anatomy of Perjury: Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, Via Rasella, and the GINNY Mission. The article makes use of both but in a somewhat curious fashion. For example, the GINNY reprisal is described as follows:

On 22–23 March 1944, a 15-man American Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Operational Group landed in inflatable boats from US Navy PT boats on the Ligurian coast as part of Operation Ginny II, a mission to blow up the entrances of two vital railway tunnels. Their boats were discovered and they were captured by a smaller group of Italian and German soldiers. On 26 March, they were executed under Hitler's "Commando Order", issued after German soldiers had been shackled during the Dieppe Raid.

References

Read: the American servicemen were murdered, but Kesselring had nothing to do with it. One does not even need to read the book since the linked article (Operations Ginny I and II) details Kesselring's role in the crime. His Knight's Cross is listed in the infobox along with various battles, while his criminal status is not.

In such situations, the combined infobox criminal and infobox military person makes sense. Perhaps the relevant fields should be added to "Infobox military person" as war crimes and resulting criminal prosecutions were sadly a common occurrence in the timeframe in question. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that. Raiber had a theory that Kesselring ordered the killing of the American OSS men, but he died before he could come up with real proof, and his book is a posthumously published unfinished work. I included the incident in the article as an example of a well-documented war crime to head off any "clean hands" ideas I detailed one atrocity committed by each service. The Operations Ginny I and II article is largely unreferenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not how a review of Raiber's book puts it:

Although the Germans had destroyed the GINNY records, Raiber discovered evidence which put Kesselring in La Spezia the day the prisoners were brought there. It was inconceivable that Dostler would not have told his superior, whom he met at noon that day in La Spezia, of the capture and discussed the commando order. (...) In 1996 Raiber demonstrated, through a meticulous review of German records what others had suspected: Kesselring had lied to avoid Dostler's fate, and his subordinates corroborated his lies.

Source. At the very least, this is a significant theory and should have not been omitted, as directly pertaining to the subject of the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a bit off-track of the infobox discussion, and seems to be about inclusion of information in the body. It certainly doesn't make him more notable as a criminal than he was as a military person. As far as infobox military person is concerned, if you want to suggest additional fields be added to it, Template Talk:Infobox military person is that way, and if you want to change the guidance on infobox criminal, I suggest you raise that at Template talk:Infobox criminal. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Since PM67 now also started a thread at Template Talk:Infobox military person I am not sure where to comment. In general I think convictions because of war crimes should be part of an infobox military person, regardless of how that would be best engineered. The infobox already not only provides the most well known information, e.g. his command in Italy, but also informs about his earlier service as to present a more complete picture of his career. I do not see why a conviction for war crimes would not be an important part of that career. After the war Kesselring was, besides Manstein, one of the most well known prisoners serving a sentence for war crimes, at the time more prominent than Speer.--Assayer (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Speer on became well-known because of his book, published after he was released. His cellmate Rudolf Hess was certainly better known before then (and is still better-known today). Manstein is similar; he is better known than Kesselring today because of his book. Although Kesselring also wrote a book, it doesn't seem to have had the same impact. However, while Mainstein is more popular on Wikipedia, Google ngrams tells me that Kesselring was much better known in the 1940s, and until the 1980s. The best-known German WWII military figure convicted of war crimes by far though was Karl Dönitz. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• There's no reason to exclude notable criminal convictions from an infobox, and the "known for" terminology should not be a major stumbling block. It's a simple matter to embed a Criminal module within the Military Person template (see Bill Cosby) or vice versa. –dlthewave ☎ 18:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Assayer I did not "start a thread" at Template Talk:Infobox military person, I left a notice pointing to this discussion. That is how it is done so that editors discuss things centrally. I also posted a notice at the infobox criminal talk page and at a couple of relevant WikiProjects. But you found your way here, so it must have worked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the following layout, which embeds a small portion of the Criminal infobox within the Military Person infobox –dlthewave ☎ 19:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring
Kesselring wearing his Knight's Cross in 1940
Nickname(s)	Smiling Albert Uncle Albert
Born	(1885-11-30)30 November 1885 Marktsteft, Kingdom of Bavaria, German Empire
Died	16 July 1960(1960-07-16) (aged 74) Bad Nauheim, [t[Hessen]], West Germany
Allegiance	German Empire (to 1918) Weimar Republic (to 1933) Nazi Germany (to 1945)
Service/branch	Bavarian Army (1904–1922) Reichsheer (1922–33) Luftwaffe (1933–1945)
Years of service	1904–1945
Rank	Generalfeldmarschall
Commands held	Luftflotte 1 Luftflotte 2 OB South Army Group C OB West
Battles/wars	World War I Western Front Eastern Front World War II Invasion of Poland (1939) Battle of France (1940) Battle of Britain (1940) Operation Barbarossa (1941) Operation Typhoon (1941) Siege of Malta (1940–1942) North African Campaign (1941–1943) Italian Campaign (1943–1945) Central Europe Campaign (1945)
Awards	Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds
War crimes
Criminal charge	Shooting of 335 Italians in Ardeatine massacre, incitement to kill Italian civilians
Penalty	Death penalty (commuted; released in 1953)

I could live with the nesting of an infobox criminal module within and at the bottom of infobox military person. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be an acceptable compromise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree, the placement of the additional fields is an improvement on the original proposal. Zawed (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Any reason why the criminal charge parameter is used rather than the conviction parameter? Factotem (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

In general, both parameters should be available.--Assayer (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I based it on the parameters in this version, but I have no objection to changing it to conviction. –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review: nomination & discussion

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC) [5].

---

Albert Kesselring

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Italy, WikiProject History, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics,WikiProject Jewish History, Hawkeye7

Review section

Nomination statement

The article was promoted to FA status in 2009; it does not reflect the most recent scholarship nor FA best practices. The criteria that are the focus of this nomination are: (1.b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (1.c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources; (1.d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (2.a) lead: prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections.

FAs are expected to maintain required standards and this article has not kept up with the times. To start with, the lead contains material that is not expanded on in the article, such as: Nicknamed 'Smiling Albert' by the Allies and 'Uncle Albert' by his troops, he was one of the most popular generals of World War II with the rank and file. This is not discussed further in the article, and is also a selective reading of Kerstin von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, 2009, p. 16, which goes on to state:

During the 1950s, this picture of Kesselring ['Smiling Al', a general with a common touch], which had been presented at his trial, was seized on and embellished by a range of memoirists. Yet when one considers the bloody assaults on whole villages during the Wehrmacht retreat in the summer of 1944, the picture of the 'good general' painted during the trial seems like a travesty.

The omission of Lingen's conclusion results in a non-neutral presentation starting with the lead. Some of the sources used are dated and / or questionable. Specifically, the article utilises Kesselring's memoirs published in 1955 (30+ citations); this source is not independent, not secondary, and in several important respects not reliable. In another example, a 1954 review of Kesselring's memoirs is used to claim that "the memoirs formed a valuable resource, informing military historians on topics such as the background to the invasion of the Soviet Union". This is neither neutral nor comprehensive, as the article neglects later evaluations that connect Kesselring's works to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht (e.g. here: Reckonings: Legacies of Nazi Persecution). In any case, the source is being used selectively & some of the content fails verification. To start with, the review is more sarcastic than glowing, and it opens thus:

To judge by their memoirs, German generals led sheltered lives. Most of them agree that under twelve years of Hitler rule they saw no evil, spoke none and did none. The latest to proclaim his innocence is 69-year-old Field Marshal Albert Kesselring. Loyal enough by his own admission to "enjoy Hitler's unreserved confidence," Kesselring also proved affable and adjustable enough after the war to assist U.S. Army historians and retain his wartime nickname of "Smiling Al."

Note that the generic "military historians" in the article is actually "U.S. Army historians", from the US Army Historical Division that employed former Wehrmacht generals after the war; the review does not mention the attack on the Soviet Union either. This appears to be OR based on FA nominator's reading of the memoirs.

Further, the article's portrayal of Kesselring's does not align with recent scholarship. For example, the article states: Kesselring became one of Nazi Germany's most skilful commanders. Compare with Robert Citino, The Wehrmacht Retreats, 2012, p. 272: "Kesselring presided over the loss of 415,000 men (...). Even as a limited campaign of delay and attrition, the German defence of Italy was an utter failure." The material, when cited to Kesselring, is often self-serving. Take this passage, for example:

On 11 May 1944 General Sir Harold Alexander, commanding the Allied Armies in Italy, launched Operation Diadem, which finally broke through the Gustav Line and forced the Tenth Army to withdraw. In the process, a gap opened up between the Tenth and Fourteenth Armies, threatening both with encirclement. For this failure, Kesselring relieved von Mackensen of his command, replacing him with General der Panzertruppe Joachim Lemelsen. Fortunately for the Germans, Lieutenant General Mark W. Clark, commander of the U.S. Fifth Army, obsessed with the capture of Rome, failed to take advantage of the situation and the Tenth Army was able to withdraw to the next line of defence, the Trasimene Line, where it was able to link up with the Fourteenth Army and then conduct a fighting withdrawal.

Citino, Wehrmacht's Last Stand, 2017, debunks or contextualises this narrative:

• Citino begins by discussing Kesselring's intelligence failures ahead of Diadem: "More generally, Kesselring completely missed the dramatic redeployment of the Allied forces in Italy"; Wehrmacht was "caught napping", pp. 99-100
• Details a bungled response: "Throughout it all, we cannot say that Kesselring was particularly active in arranging countermeasures. His initial reaction to Diadem was disbelief."
• In re: Kesselring blaming a subordinate for the predicament that the Wehrmacht had found itself in: "In fact, nothing would have helped", p. 103.
• Citino offers a more nuanced analysis of Mark Clark's dash to Rome, describing it as a "non-event of 'Clark's blunder'," because the Germans did not seem to have noticed it at all.

Citino writes about Kesselring's account: he "spends much of his memoirs criticising operational decisions on both sides (except his own, which he deems to be invariably correct)." Kesselring's writings themselves have become an object of historiographical analysis; this is not reflected in the article, not meeting the requirement for being comprehensive and placing the subject in proper context. Parts of the article reproduce the Wehrmacht myth, and Kesselring's self-portrayal brings to mind tenets of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy:

• It left the burden of preventing the Allied evacuation of Dunkirk to the air force...
• Kesselring felt that much more could have been accomplished if he had had ...
• Kesselring was well aware that while this force was large enough to stop the Allies from simply marching in[to Italy]...

No, a war that one starts is not a "burden" and Kesselring was not protecting hearth and home in Italy either; it was an occupied country. Citino 2012, The Wehrmacht Retreats, p. 281 cautions: "We need to write the history of the war year 1943 with a complete absence of romance. The Wehrmacht was not defending the fatherland. It was fighting to hold far-flung conquests it had made in a brutal war of aggression--the very definition of ill-gotten gains."

Where the article does make use of recent scholarship, cherrypicked citations and OR sometimes result in a distorted representation; see the 'Smiling Al' example from the lead above. Another example, in re: the German Operation Axis: Italy now effectively became an occupied country, as the Germans poured in troops. Italy's decision to switch sides created contempt for the Italians among both the Allies and Germans, which was to have far-reaching consequences. The last cite is out-of-context and OR/SYNTH. In the context of post-war prosecution of war criminals, Lingen, p. 81 discusses the "deep contempt felt, especially in military quarters, for Italy's decision to 'change sides' in 1943. The Italian protest [about not being allowed a judge at Kesselring's trial] fell on deaf ears". Lingen does not mention the German reaction, does not equate the Allied contempt with the German murderous actions in disarming the Italian army, nor talks about unspecified consequences. Further discussion of Operation Axis is likewise not comprehensive nor balanced.

The message one takes away here and from the rest of 1943/44 narrative is that atrocities were committed, but Kesselring had nothing to do with them directly. The article does not mention Kesselring's support for National Socialism, his silence on the ejection of Jewish soldiers from the armed forces, and loyalty to Hitler; see Lingen pp. 23, 24 & 27, respectively. Lingen's conclusions that Kesselring "created a myth focused on himself (a myth that resonated during the 1950s) and saw himself as the victim", p. 29, is not reflected in the article.

Here is a sampling of prior discussions where similar concerns were brought up:

• 2016: Talk:Albert Kesselring#Third-party sources needed
• 2018: Talk:Albert Kesselring#Featured article review
• 2019: Talk:Albert Kesselring#Feb 2019 edit

I have attempted to resolve the issues by editing the article to add sources and remove Kesselring's self-serving POV. However, most of my edits were reverted on the grounds that "Tweaking the wording is not acceptable. The wording has been carefully reviewed...". Based on the inability to resolve the issues of sourcing, neutrality, and context, and after discussing with the FA nominator [6], I'm bringing the article to community review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Featured article review

I do not agree that the article does not reflect the most recent scholarship nor FA best practices, but am willing to workshop the issues you raise. I choose to start with the part about Operation Diadem. This issue here is how good a general Kesselring was. I have not read Citino's books; I was under the impression that he wrote popular histories and did not discuss logistics. I have asked the university library to acquire Wehrmacht's Last Stand. In the meantime, I do have a copy of the most recent book on Kesselring, Andrew Sangster's Field-Marshal Kesselring: Great Commander or War Criminal? (2015), based on his PhD thesis (which I also have). In a nutshell, Sangster's thesis is that it is not that Kesselring was so great, but that his opponents, Alexander and Clark, were such poor generals. Neither enjoys a great reputation. Germany and the Second World War (Vol VIII, pp. 1150-1151) does not support the claim of a German intelligence failure, and this seems unlikely when everyone knew that after two attempts, the Allies would make a third the break the Gustav Line. On the other hand, there is no doubt that Kesselring was caught off-balance by the landings at Anzio, having committed his reserves to the Garigliano front, which was precisely what Clark wanted him to do. Germany and the Second World War notes that Kesselring was caught off-guard by the rapid French advance through difficult terrain. It also says: " The American general [Clark]'s ego-centric coup saved the German Tenth Army, at least temporarily" (p. 1153), citing both German and British sources. The text therefore aligns with the current consensus among historians. It could be expanded though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Szzuk

Comment. The article contains a significant amount of POV which downplays his status as a war criminal.

Von Lingen describes the post-war situation very persuasively like this "After the war the Federal government bought the release of their war criminals including Kesselring". "In return for Kesselring's death sentence being commuted and release on "health grounds", the Federal government received enough support within Germany to begin making a military contribution to the defence of Western Europe". Veterans began using Kesselring to determine a new narrative of the past that absolved Kesselring of responsibility for his war crimes". The British government, concerned with the growing Cold War, released Kesselring in order to encourage the Federal government to join the European Defence Council and NATO. The British decided releasing a few "iconic" war criminals was a price worth paying for the support of West Germany.

The article using exactly the same source instead says this;

The death verdict against Kesselring unleashed a storm of protest in the United Kingdom. Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill immediately branded it as too harsh and intervened in favour of Kesselring. Field Marshal Alexander, then Governor General of Canada, sent a telegram to Prime Minister Clement Attlee in which he expressed his hope that Kesselring's sentence would be commuted. "As his old opponent on the battlefield", he stated, "I have no complaints against him. Kesselring and his soldiers fought against us hard but clean." Alexander had expressed his admiration for Kesselring as a military commander as early as 1943. In his 1961 memoirs Alexander paid tribute to Kesselring as a commander who "showed great skill in extricating himself from the desperate situations into which his faulty intelligence had led him". Alexander's sentiments were echoed by Lieutenant General Sir Oliver Leese, who had commanded the British Eighth Army in the Italian campaign. In a May 1947 interview, Leese said he was "very sad" to hear of what he considered "British victor's justice" being imposed on Kesselring, an "extremely gallant soldier who had fought his battles fairly and squarely". Lord de L'Isle, who had been awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry at Anzio, raised the issue in the House of Lords. Szzuk (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The two passages are talking about very different things. The latter is about the imposition of the death penalty; the former is about Kesselring's release from prison. The latter is entirely about the British POV; the former is where it intersects the German one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Kirsten von Lingen says this about the death sentence in Hitler’s Military Elite in Italy and the Question of “Decent War” (2015):

However, Kesselring’s sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment, partly owing to the eruption of political controversy in London, led by former prime minister Winston Churchill and supported by Field Marshal Harold Alexander. Numerous English politicians deplored "British victors’ justice," church leaders preached reconciliation, and senior British officers raised their voices to praise Kesselring’s military skill. They were all given plenty of media coverage, thus creating the British version of the "upright and fair Italian theater of war." In addition, these men triggered a debate on the very purpose of war crimes trials—a bitter debate that continued to rage in England until Kesselring’s release in 1952. It showed the British victory in court to be a Pyrrhic one, at least with respect to memory politics.

References

• Nom's comment: The perception that Robert Citino writes popular histories is not correct. Citino specialises in the operational history of the Wehrmacht; he has held a number of academic positions and is a practising military historian who publishes with a university publisher, University Press of Kansas, same as Lingen. To anyone interested in Citino's work, I can recommend his lectures on Youtube, such as on Wehrmacht's campaigns in 1943: "Fighting a Lost War". His writing style is equally engaging.

• I've obtained copies of the two books of his in question. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

On Szzuk observation, I also found that Lingen is used selectively and with an apologist bend; the book does not leave this impression at all. I already cited two examples: "Smiling Albert" in the lead and the treatment of the 1943 disarmament of the Italian army, Operation Axis (see #Nomination statement). Another example from the article:

The trials were held under the Royal Warrant of 18 June 1945, thus under British Military Law. The decision put the trials on a shaky legal basis, as foreign nationals were being tried for crimes against foreigners in a foreign country.

References

The language in the article suggests that there was something improper about the trials or that perhaps they were illegitimate. Lingen details several challenges and questions to be resolved (pp. 73-74), but page 73 does not leave the impression of the trial being on a "shaky legal basis". The source is again being misread. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Von Lingen says:

The Royal Warrant issued on June 14, 1945, established military courts and laid down the rules of procedure. But it proved more difficult than anticipated to legitimize the jurisdiction of Allied courts, for the legal basis for trying military commanders and commanders-in-chief was also subject to dispute. Which military penal codes should apply - the German ones in force at the time the crimes were committed, that of the country where the crimes took place, or the British one?

Von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 73

I think the article fairly summaries the text. It also makes it clear that crimes were committed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"Smiling Albert" was a name given by the Allies on account of the fact that he was always smiling in the pictures they had of him. (Regrettably, he isn't smiling in any of the pictures in the article.) Given the circumstances, I don't think it was intended as a complement, and likely played to the wartime stereotype of the arrogant German general. You're quite right that it should also be in the body of the article; it will be an action item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Kesselring was only responsible for the 1943 disarmament in southern Italy. All I could find in his area was the shooting of Ferrante Gonzaga; but if you have another incident, it can be included. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. The POV is being supported by the 20+ primary refs and a misreading of Lingen. There are eulogies such as the block quote beginning "Furthermore, we knew that in command of these forces was Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, one of the ablest officers in the Hitler armies." Szzuk (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  It was not a eulogy, it was written by his opponent, Mark W. Clark, and was written in 1950, while Kesselring was not only still alive, but still in prison. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. In 1937 he was in charge of the Luftwaffe and he cancelled the long range ural bomber program. The lack of a strategic bomber was a major fiasco. This isn't noted, instead the article argues he wasn't really responsible. Szzuk (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  Have you got a good source for this? I originally wrote: Like many ex-Army officers, he tended to see air power in the tactical role, providing support to land operations. He rejected strategic bombing and cancelled the Ural bomber. The current text was written by Dapi89, who knows more about the subject of Luftwaffe doctrine. In what way was the bomber program a fiasco, and what was Kesselrinmg's role? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately my institution does not have access to this source but it looks relevant to this discussion: https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004363762/B9789004363762_016.xml AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  Nor mine, but I have asked them to consider purchasing it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• They got it for me! Looks very interesting. I will be reading it this week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Sourcing a controversial figure to his own memoirs has given rise to POV. Should we also use Mein Kampf to source the Adolf Hitler article? Szzuk (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Drmies

A few comments

I see serious problems with neutrality, some problems with the writing, and in the few cases where I checked the sources, more problems.

• "At the age of 48, he...", this is essentially self-praise translated into Wikipedia's voice. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  Well, we made a big thing about it in the articles on Ernie King, Bill Halsey and John McCain Sr. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Like many ex-Army officers..." contains way too much irrelevant stuff (and extraneous detail is found in other place; this is possibly accretion since 2009, I don't know). Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm always loath to remove additions that other editors think are important. In this case, I think it is relevant; it talks of the dictrine of the Luftwaffe, how it differed from that of English-speaking Air Forces, and the influence that ex-Army officers like Kesselring had. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Kesselring himself "would be shot down"? The war is over y'all: he "was shot down". Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  Corrected this one - I was leaving the big ticket items for later in the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Kesselring was able to fly solo over the front in his Focke-Wulf Fw 189." -- it sounds like Cary Grant going out on the town, in Monte Carlo or so
• "Flying his Fieseler Fi 156 Storch to a meeting," Oh! he got a new set of wheels
• "For the Battle of Gazala, Rommel divided his command in two..." paragraph doesn't become relevant to Kesselring until halfway through. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, the article has lots of bits where the importance becomes clear later. Otherwise I would have to jump back and forth in the chronology. The bits mentioned above about his replacement of Mackensen with Lemelsen, and Allied attitudes towards the Italians pertain to later in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• "The Allied invasion of Sicily..." is way too full of insignificant military detail about what plane killed what boat or whatever. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  This can be trimmed back. Will mark as an action item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Kesselring returned to Sicily by flying boat on 16 July..." more new wheels!
• "On the Greek island of Kefalonia – outside Kesselring's command – some 5,000 Italian troops of the 33 Mountain Infantry Division Acqui were massacred." Why is this in here? if it is outside of his command, why mention it? Or is it here to suggest that some other dude was much worse than this dude, who so far has only had one Italian commander shot? Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think this is a well-known incident, and goes to what k.e.coffman was talking about. I didn't want to soft-peddle Operation Axis. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• "The Luftwaffe scored a notable success ..." (in the bombing by those Stukas of that port): why is that in here? Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  Three things: (1) another reminder that Kesselring is an Air Force field marshal; (2) a refute of the claim that he fought a purely defensive campaign; and (3) demonstrates that his intelligence wasn't always bad. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• The entire "Actions affecting population and cultural objects" section reads like hagiography. In fact, it reads as if the Nazis are concerned to a great extent with preserving Italy's treasures, while the Allies just go in and bomb the shit out of Rome. I don't doubt they bombed Rome fifty times, but the little footnote, note 5 (which, sad to say, actually constitutes editorial commentary), indicates that the whole "open city" thing (which isn't even ascribed to Kesselring other than by "he supported it") can be seen as a ruse as well. (and there is way too much material on the events in Italy in 1943). Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That's not all, though, in that paragraph. I wondered about the source of the approbatory "...as far as he was able, attempted...", whether it came out of his memoirs. The note is to Fisher's Casino to the Alps. Whether that source is completely acceptable (it is, after all, a publication by the US Armed Forces, and even an impressive editorial board doesn't mean that one can't question to which extent they participated in the well-known myth making) or not is one thing, but surely any editor can see that the paragraph I just pointed at is not found on p. 290 of that book: the only thing there is the destruction of buildings on either side of the Ponte Vecchio. And this is not unimportant, given content and tenor of these paragraphs. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

    This is indeed a major issue, with multiple aspects. The German record on preserving cultural artefacts has to include the theft of artworks by Göring and others. Failure to adequately protect cultural objects is a war crime. It is also true that several times as many deaths were caused by Allied bombing as by German and Italian reprisals. I deliberately didn't mention this, but I guess we need to. (Kesselring denied knowledge of the theft of artworks, but not of the final solution; his mention of often flying over Dachau was removed by another editor as non-neutral.) This goes again to the treatment of Italy as not being an Ally, which is how Kesselring escaped being executed. I'll admit the open city footnote is a bit of an editorial by my Italian collaborator, but it was a war crime to bombard an undefended city. Kesselring was accused of this, and it also goes to the argument about other bombings. The American defence was that there were armament factories in Rome. I will mark removal of the editorial as an action item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The Open City was a sincere initiative that was pushed by the Pope Pius XII, but the concept is not widely understood. It allows for troops to pass through the city. (The Allies were happy about this, as they expected to occupy Rome.) The Americans were very sensitive about Rome, and there was an Allied agreement at Quebec in May 1943 that it should not be bombed without mutual consent, but the British were opposed to the concept from the start. Of course, the British were far more enthusiastic about the idea of knocking Italy out of the war. After Badoglio unilaterally declared Rome an Open City on 14 September 1943, Eisenhower ordered all bombing to halt while the Combined Chiefs considered the matter. The Americans and British could not agree. I have incorporated more material on this into the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think I've seen enough: non-neutral and sometimes tendentious writing and at least some examples of poor sourcing. But the kicker is this: Hawkeye7, who should know better, restores the "jolly uncle Albert" to the lead, when the "Later life" section basically shows an unrepentant Nazi who wipes his behind with the orders of the government nextdoor, continues to support the myth of a clean German army, and on top of it defends the Marzabotto massacre. That OUR article calls him happy popular Uncle Albert, touring Europe in an assortment of airplances, and leaves the fact that he was, in fact, an unrepentant Nazi in the very bottom of the article, that is clear enough. I do not think this qualifies as an FA, but one could make some immediate improvement by undoing Hawkeye's unwise revert, to return some sense of neutrality to the lead. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If that's the impression you got from reading the article, I think I did pretty well. The term "smiling Albert" is commonly used for Kesselring; almost every reference I have refers to it. (Some mistakenly thought that it was a German monicker rather than an Allied one, so I was asked to correct that impression.) I tried to refute the "clean hands" myth by including details of massacres committed by each branch. Kesselring's administrative authority really only extended to the Heer and the Luftwaffe; the SS and the Herman Göring Division were outside his control. However, he was loath to admit that, and the Yamashita case makes it uncertain in any case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The impression that I got was indeed that it's not an FA. Is that what you succeeded in? What a strange comment. Here's the thing: no. I am sure that every reference you have also refers to him as a killer, guilty of mass murder. It was your choice to put "Uncle Albert" in the lead, in the very first paragraph. One of the hallmarks of POV is to present a fact out of context at the expense of others, with the goal to skew the reader's perception. You have done so successfully. And I think I have indicated well enough that throughout the article there are bits and pieces whose purpose seems to be to deflect blame in various ways. Certainly it's enough for a POV tag. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"Smiling Albert" was in the very first paragraph of the lead long before I started editing Wikipedia. [7] I corrected it by adding the Uncle Albert reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. The article uses the nickname the allies gave him, "Smiling Albert", to convey the meaning he was a jovial character. He was given that nickname because he had a nervous tic that turned the corners of his mouth up uncontrollably. It was an insult, and using an insult to present to the reader the exact opposite is egregious POV. The article is full of it. No work has been done since the start of this FAR. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  Patience. I am working on it. There has been a search for new material, and I have read through Citino's books, as recommended by Koffman. I will be making a series of changes over the next two weeks. My internet access is limited at the moment. The article does not use the nickname to convey that he was a jovial character (not that it would make a difference if he was). There was no intention to convey that it was not intended as an insult. I'm really running out of patience with writers who have misunderstood the nickname as being one applied by his own troops instead of the American media. The text needs to be and will be strengthened. Also: a citation for the nervous tic would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  The sentence "Nicknamed "Smiling Albert" by the Allies and "Uncle Albert" by his troops, he was one of the most popular generals of World War II with the rank and file." implies a relationship between being a popular general and being called "Smiling Albert", which the note clarifying that one was used by the Allies and the other by the Germans does nothing to dispel. I don't think Szzuk's inference is unwarranted or uncharitable; that's certainly how it reads to me too in the context of the article. —Nizolan ^(talk) 14:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  Sure. I will re-work it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Response

I was originally asked to work on an improve this article as part of an overall push to improve the articles on key German military figures of the Second World War. This was in 2007, and I was new to Wikipedia. (This is what the article looked like at the time) As you can probably guess, the push completely failed and only this article got improved. The reader interest in the subject was demonstrated though; when it ran as RFA, it got nearly 100,000 page views—more than any other featured article article I've worked on. This was in my early days on Wikipedia. It discussed it at a Wikipedia meet up at the National Library, and expressed my concern that the topic was too controversial for Wikipedia. They disagreed, and said that shouldn't come into it. So I took the assignment on. My assessment was correct, as was my belief that it was uneconomical for me to work on it.

At the time, there were only two real sources in English: Kesselring's memoirs and Macksey's book. Contrary to what Drmies says, sources in English published between 1954 and 2004 do not characterise Kesselring as a war criminal but largely omit this, and uniformly laud him as a great general. Fortunately, I found Kerstin von Lingen's book in German. The whole article largely follows her narrative, although her book is not a biography per se (no one is better qualified to write one though). She informed me that an English translation was under way, so I commenced work on the article. An artefact of my early Wikipedia engagement can be seen in the formatting of the footnotes. To me, it is also visible in the way that errors in the sources are handled. Rather than single out people for their mistakes, which is of no value to the reader, I quietly corrected them. The "Smiling Albert" nickname, for example, is in some sources speculated to have been given to him by his post-war captors, but I found that it was in use as early as 1940. I have tried to address the concerns expressed by this review, and have incorporated additional works and scholarship. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Coord note: Can we get an update of where things are at with this nomination? K.e.coffman what concerns remain? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 update

The concerns expressed during this FAR (#Nomination statement & #A few comments) remain largely unaddressed. They include:

1. Content failing verification
2. Use of an unreliable & dated primary source, including presenting subject’s self-serving narratives in Wikipedia’s voice
3. Failure to reflect recent scholarship
4. POV writing
5. Omission of relevant context
6. Selective reading of sources w/ cherry-picked citations

--K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

None of this is true.

1. All of the content in the article is fully referenced
2. The use of the subject's memoirs has been handled carefully and in accord with best practice.
3. Recent scholarship has been incorporated into the article. Starting with Kirsten von Lingen's book and articles, which have formed the backbone of the article. When an editor suggested a newly-published source I acquired it, and incorporated it into the article
4. The article reflects the consensus of opinion among historians and not the WP:FRINGE views of POV-pushers
5. I have repeatedly refuted attempts to misquote and misrepresent the sources.

I have worked on the article in good faith. I recommend that the review be closed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur - valid concerns were raised above but Hawkeye has since made edits/provided reasoned arguments to address these. As an example, mention was made to Citino as examples of more recent scholarship and his books are now cited as a source. I note that a couple of comments were made in respect of Kesselring's role in strategic bombing and his nervous tic but the reviewer hasn't substantiated that despite Hawkeye's request to do so. Some comments struck me as being more a case of "I don't like it" and application of a higher standard for this article compared to other Featured Articles. Assessing the comments above in full, there are still a few minor things that could be tidied up but these aren't on a scale that would its affect its FA status IMHO. Zawed (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I share Drmies' concerns expressed above. The first paragraph of the lede characterizes him as an avuncular figure, popular with his men, and an accomplished general. That may well be true; no doubt many of Hitler's followers were loyal to him, as, no doubt, were Eva Braun and Blondi. But mention of Kesselring's war crimes is deferred to the last paragraph of the lede. Those crimes, and the enormity of those crimes, should be mentioned first. Kablammo (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I estimate to bring this article up to current FAC standards would require a 20% rewrite from circa 400 edits. Merely to remove the POV would require a 5% rewrite from 100 edits. Since the start of this FAR the edits have been low in number and tangential to concerns expressed. Szzuk (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: Since the start of there process there have been 60 edits adding 20,000 bytes of new material, increasing the article size from 110,000 to 130,000 bytes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• FYI--I've cross-posted the review at NPOVN: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Albert Kesselring featured article review. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: in view of the unresolved issues and the strong criticisms from uninvolved editors (Drmies, Kablammo, Szzuk), I believe this needs to be moved to the second phase now. I note especially Drmies' comment, which would have looked even stronger if shown as a whole, rather than broken up by Hawkeye's insertions. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC).
• I am not sure what the next step in this process is, but I agree that there should be a next step. I still find it hard to believe that this tripe about these two nicknames is in the first paragraph of the lead, for starters--and that this wouldn't be addressed after it was pointed out. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• I may have misunderstood you. You feel that the nickname should not be in the lead? I left it there because it is a common appellation that appears in most sources, that nicknames usually appear in the lead and the infobox, and it has been there since January 2004 - over 15 years - so it had an implied consensus for inclusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PM

Having read the article through a couple of times now, I have a few questions and comments regarding it meeting the FA criteria:

• I added in that he was a war criminal into the first sentence, this was a significant flaw in the lead, but it seems to have taken.

  It wasn't there because being a war criminal was not on the notability list in WP:N and he didn't meet WP:PERPETRATOR. As I said above, for half a century this aspect was not considered worth more than a footnote (or even noteworthy at all) in the sources. Interest in the post-World War II war crimes trials revived in the early 2000s as a result of the wars in the Balkans and Iraq. Most of the literature was from legal sources, and was very negative, focusing on the dodgy rules of evidence in military trials, and the Americans' use of torture to extract confessions. However, von Lingen was one of the historians who pushed back, with her work in Europe and later in Australia, and it provided us with a new source on Kesselring, with a lot of material gathered from non-English sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  Notability guidelines aren't relevant for what is included in the first sentence, they relate to whether there should be an article on him in the first place. The first sentence should establish notability, he is known for being a senior German commander and for his involvement in killing of civilians, the latter being well-represented in the literature by 2009, so it should have been there then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I can see the argument for the use of Kesselring's memoirs for straightforward biographical material or for his opinion on something, although I have concerns about it being used to support material written in Wikipedia's voice, which is the way it is currently used. I think the answer to this is to introduce what is being referred to as Kesselring, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring (BTW is this Gedanken zum Zweiten Weltkrieg or Soldat bis zum letzten Tag? The citation is unclear) when it is first used, something along the lines of "In his 1955/1970 memoirs, Kesselring wrote that..." and then from that point on, especially when anything he says is possibly controversial or self-serving, using something like "Kesselring wrote that..." "According to Kesselring..." "Kesselring later claimed that..." etc. This would largely resolve my concerns with the use of the memoirs

  The The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring is the English translation of Soldat bis zum letzten Tag. Gedanken zum Zweiten Weltkrieg has never been translated into English. For the record, nearly every source makes some use of Kesselring's memoirs. I think you'll find that the memoirs are used for some biographical material in the early years, and sparingly thereafter. There is a couple of "According to his memoirs" in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  The citations remain unclear, because the citations to Soldier to the Last Day shouldn't say The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring, they should say Soldier to the Last Day so the reader knows what book in the References is being referred to. The lack of in-text attribution is a major hurdle in my opinion. Just because historians have used Kesselring's memoirs doesn't mean we should use them directly and in Wikipedia's voice. Historians are expected to analyse the memoirs and sift through the self-serving stuff, check facts etc. Kesselring's words are primary and not independent of the subject, so they need to be attributed except when used for basic biographical information. Nearly all of the Poland section relies directly on his memoirs, there are numerous examples of where his word is taken as gospel for what happened. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  The citations are all to the English translation and not to the original German. I have corrected the reference. Soldat bis zum letzten Tag was published in 1953, and an English translation appeared that year. It was reprinted in 1988 and 2007 as The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring. As far as I can tell, all the English editions have the same page numbers. Saying "in his 1953 memoirs" is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  I have now attributed in-text all the material from Kesselring's memoirs that I consider needs to be. If this sticks, I will be voting "keep". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Kesselring was in charge of the bombing of Warsaw in September 1939, but nothing is really said about what was an example of terror bombing like Rotterdam and Belgrade

  Although described as such at the time, the modern consensus is that this was unintended, and that the accuracy of bombing of was grossly over-estimated in those days. I expanded on this in the Rotterdam section, using the recent work of Dutch and German historians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll do a light c/e and provide some more comments as they come to mind. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• it is a little unclear when he went back into uniform, as he was promoted to Generalmajor in 1934 but the Luftwaffe wasn't created until 1935?

  That's all I have, I'm afraid. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• the two paras beginning "Like many ex-Army officers" interrupt the narrative and would probably be better in a Legacy section

  re-thought this, created a new section at the same point in the article to encompass this material Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• the Poland section needs a better narrative flow, perhaps by inserting the second para after "Fedor von Bock" and making the new second para the rest of the first para plus the sentence about the Knight's Cross award

  Have done this also. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to get an idea of the losses incurred by his Luftflotten over Britain and the Soviet Union

  Between 22 June and 5 December 1941, the seven Luftwaffe fighter wings lost 382 aircraft. Soviet sources give their losses as 21,200, of which at least 10,000 were destroyed in air combat. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Down to Allied invasion of Sicily. Maybe more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Thus, Kesselring's conviction became "a legal prerequisite if perpetrators of war crimes were to be found guilty by Italian courts"" doesn't make sense to me. What is meant by that?

  I'm not sure, although it is a correct quote. I have removed. it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• what happened to Krummhaar?

  Typo there. Corrected. It was Waldemar Krumhaar. He was sentenced to five years and released in 1950. Unfortunately, I can't find a RS to add this. [8] I wanted to refute the "clean hands" myth so I deliberately selected names from the Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine and SS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm done with the c/e. I'll implement some of the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• This needs to go unless it can be confirmed by a RS: According to Kesselring, while he was flying his Fieseler Fi 156 Storch to a meeting he was fired upon by a British force astride Rommel's line of communications. Kesselring called in an air strike by every available Stuka along with other types of ground attack aircraft. His strike was successful; the British force suffered heavy losses and was forced to pull back.

  I have removed this, and re-sourced the paragraphs to Germany and the Second World War. Because one of Kesselring's contentions is now backed up by Stumpf (who cites and quotes radio messages, not the memoirs) I have removed one "According to Kesselring". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• including General der Infantrie Enno von Rintelen, the German liaison officer at the Italian Commando Supremo, who spoke fluent Italian Why is this important?

  Removed "who spoke fluent Italian". I think I included this titbit to show how close von Rintelen was to the Italians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the info about his nicknames from the lede. It's enough that they're covered in the main body.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by K.e.coffmand

Lead through the Poland section

• "...became one of Nazi Germany's most skilful commanders..." -- according to whom? See, for example, Robert Citino for a different opinion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  So I did. This is what he has to say:

Kesselring would earn a reputation as a defensive genius for managing to hold onto Italy until the end of the war. A typical modern evaluation in the English-language literature describes him in glowing terms as a "decisive commander":

Kesselring established himself as a master of the defensive who able time and again to thwart Alied aims in the Mediterranean with significantly smaller forces... His imprint for the battle for Tunisia had been minimal, but changed dramatically when the fighting shifted to Italy. was a product of Kesselring's genius for defensive operations. Throught the campaign it was Kesselring who dictated German strategy by the firm exercise of command and by his ability to shrewdly maneuver his forces against the Allies.

Another labels him as a "master of defensive warfare", a commander with "an instinctive feel for battle", a "a general able to inflict maximum damage on the enemy before withdrawing to fight anbother day." Still others claim that her was "as good a general as emerged from the German army in the Second World War".

The Wehrmach Retreats, p. 271

• So this is his summation of the consensus among historians. The historians Citino refers to are Carlo D'Este, Dominick Graham, Shelford Bidwell and Douglas Porch. Citino's own verdict: "Kesselring handled the campaign skilfully, giving a bravara performance." (p. 274)

• No, this is not a consensus among historians. Citino disagrees with characterisation of Kesselring as a defensive genius; The Wehrmacht Retreats, 2012, p. 272: "Kesselring presided over the loss of 415,000 men (...). Even as a limited campaign of delay and attrition, the German defence of Italy was an utter failure." So does Sangster. These books are recent scholarship, so this should be reflected. At the very least, should be phrased as "some historians, such as ..., consider Kesselring ..., while other historians, such as ..., hold the opinion that ..." etc. When sourced disagree, both positions should be reflected. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Awkward construction: "He won the respect of his Allied opponents for his military accomplishments, but his record was marred..." (italics mine) --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• "He was one of only three officers with the rank of Generalfeldmarschall to publish his memoirs..." -- WP:OR and trivia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not trivia, because it goes to notability, but it does border on WP:OR, so removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Lead is missing information on Kesselring's later career as detailed in the Albert Kesselring#Later life section. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Added his leadership of veterans' organizations. His book is already there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• This change to the lead is not exactly what I had in mind: [9]. Recitation of orgs that Kesselring headed does not add to our understanding of the subject. Lingen and Sangster both devote a chapter each to this period of Kesselring's life, focusing on his public persona. E.g. "Kesselring himself fritted away the goodwill he initially enjoyed as a WWII military icon"; "Kesselring's demand [that war criminals be released] soon caused an unwelcome spotlight to be shown on the British clemency program" (Lingen, pp. 238-239).

• "Kesselring wrote that as chief of administration, he had to assemble his new staff from scratch. He was involved in the re-establishment of the aviation industry and the construction of secret factories, forging alliances with industrialists and aviation engineers." -- unnecessary self-congratulations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  I think this is a reasobale summation of what he did. O will have a look at what Boog has to say... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• "In his memoirs, he stated that first-hand knowledge of all aspects of aviation was essential to being able to command airmen, although he was well aware that latecomers like himself did not impress the old pioneers or the young aviators." -- unnecessary Kesselring's POV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  The issue of non-rated officers is a controversial one in many navies and air forces. In the US there area actually laws about it, so it is of interest to the reader. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• This article is a biography of Kesselring, not about Kesselring's opinion that may or may not be relevant to a controversy that readers may not even know exists. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Kesselring wrote that he gave a high priority to attacks on airfields, barracks and naval installations, while strategic targets like armament factories were not attacked because it was anticipated that the campaign would be a short one in which Polish production would not have a significant impact. (...) The Polish Air Force earned his respect. Kesselring considered that Polish pilots and aircraft were not inferior,..." -- unnecessary & POV. From other literature, we know that German air operations involved bombing of undefended localities, strafing of civilians, and so on. In this context, A paragraph of Kesselring's claims of prioritising military installations and his musings on the abilities of Polish airmen strike me as POV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Refuting the myth that the Polish air force was destroyed on the ground, or the pilots and aircraft were inferior. If you have a good source for the air war over Poland, it could be used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Again, this is a bio of Kesselring; it's not necessary to "refute" a myth that readers may not know exists. In any case, my point was about the ommission of indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, strafing of refugees, etc. Through ommission and giving undue weight to Kesselring's apologia, this is POV writing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• "According to his memoirs, Kesselring strove to provide the best possible close air support to the ground forces and used the flexibility of air power to concentrate all available air strength at critical points, such as during the Battle of the Bzura. He attempted to cut the Polish communications by making a series of air attacks against Warsaw, but found that even 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bombs could not ensure that bridges would be destroyed.. -- POV and unnecessary self-congratulations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  That he failed to accomplish what he set out to do? Hardly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Again, my point is not being addressed. "strove to provide the best..." is self-congratulations, cited to Kesselring's vainglorious memoirs. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• The article does not mention Kesselring's support for National Socialism, his silence on the ejection of Jewish soldiers from the armed forces, and loyalty to Hitler; see Lingen pp. 23, 24 & 27, respectively. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Von Lingen cites Kesselring's memoirs, and I can't find this. I could be only in the German. Do you have a copy of Soldat?

• Why is Kesselring's memoir needed here when this is covered in Lingen? I even provided the pages. Please help me understand why we would look for this info in Soldat. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Loyalty to Hitler is covered in many places, including his response to the bomb plot, and informing Hitler of the surrender negotiations in Italy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• No, it is not. The world "loyalty" appears in re: 1944 bomb plot. I was referring to Kesselring's support for Hitler's policies in the 1930s. This is covered in Lingen p. 27 & should be reflected in the article. Instead, we get the image of Kesselring as an apolitical technocrat; the image he himself cultivated in his memoirs. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Western Europe

• (A bit more on the lead): Suggest removing: "...one of the most highly decorated, being one of only 27 soldiers awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds." It's routine for field marshals to be highly decorated or to receive rare awards, while this statement -- prominently placed in the 1st para -- reads like a panegyric.

• "Kesselring's Luftflotte 1 (...) remained in the east on garrison duty, establishing new airbases and an air raid precautions network in occupied Poland. (...) Kesselring flew to his new headquarters at Münster the very next day, 13 January 1940. As Felmy's chief of staff, Generalmajor Josef Kammhuber, had also been relieved, Kesselring brought his own chief of staff, Generalmajor Wilhelm Speidel, with him." -- A self-sourced paragraph with excessive & POV details about "establishing new airbases and an air raid precautions network", Kesselring flying out "the very next day", and a mention of a nn chief of staff.

• "Arriving in the west, Kesselring found Luftflotte 2 operating in support of von Bock's Army Group B. According to his memoirs, he inherited from Felmy a complex air plan requiring precise timing over several hours, incorporating an airborne operation around Rotterdam and The Hague to seize airfields and bridges in the "Fortress Holland" area. The paratroopers were from General der Flieger Kurt Student's airborne forces, which depended on a quick link-up with the mechanised forces. To facilitate this, Kesselring promised von Bock the fullest possible close air support. Air and ground operations, however, were to commence simultaneously, so there would be no time to suppress the defending Royal Netherlands Air Force." -- Yet another self-sourced paragraph (second in a row), about the burdens that Kesselring had to bear ("inherited a complex air plan requiring precise timing over several hours...") and striving to provide "the fullest possible close air support".

• "The Battle of the Netherlands commenced on 10 May 1940. Initial air operations went well, and the German fighters and bombers soon gained the upper hand against the small Dutch air force." -- POV language of "Initial air operations went well". Went well for whom?

• "After the surrender of the Netherlands on 14 May 1940, Luftflotte 2 attempted to move forward to new airfields in Belgium while still providing support for the fast-moving ground troops. The Battle of France was going well, (...). -- Yet more of self-sourced achievements & the battle "going well", full stop.

• "In his memoirs, Kesselring described that decision as a "fatal error", because it left the burden of preventing the Allied evacuation of Dunkirk to the air force, hampered by poor flying weather and staunch opposition from the Royal Air Force." -- More POV self-citations about the literal "burden" that was forced upon Kesselring.

• More Kesselring's self-sourced musings, now with a prominent quote box:

Results will demonstrate an officer's fitness to be a field marshal, and no one will then ask about his origins, whether he came from the army or the air force. But one piece of advice I will give to all air field marshals: do not become a one-sided technician, but learn to think and lead in terms of all three services.

I've counted 50+ total citations to Kesselring's memoirs. It should be remembered that this source is not independent, not secondary, and in several important respects not reliable. Who knows what he's omitted, obfuscated, or lied about? The use of this source is excessive and not in line with WP:PRIMARY, let alone in an FA. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Soviet Union to Tunisia

• The sourcing in the Soviet Union section is especially poor. Nine out of 10 citations are to primary, dated and non-independent sources. They are Kesselring (again) and Hermann Plocher, a former Luftwaffe general working for the US Air Force Historical Division; the working link is this: [10]. This section is truly stuck in the 1950s, with sources from the earlier stages of the Cold War. In contrast, Germany and the Second World War, Vol. IV, has a different take on Kesselring's performance in this campaign.

• The library's copy of the book was lost in the great flood of 2018, but I have obtained a copy. Kesselring is mentioned eleven times, on pages 335, 359, 363, 366, 664, 765, 770, 774, 783, 811, 822. Page 335 notes Kesselring's doubts about whether invading the Soviet Union was a sensible idea (sourced to his memoirs); 359 notes how he arranged for additional transport the Luftwaffe to follow the panzers (sourced to his memoirs); 363 is an org chart; 366 merely notes that he was in command of Luftlotte 2; 765 is Kesselring's comment of the Soviet air opposition (sourced to his memoirs); 770 is his comment of the battle of Smolensk (sourced to his memoirs); 774 is probably what you were thinking of, his "high-handed" decision to support the II Army advance, which Boog says "proved to be correct"; 783 is his thoughts on the advance on Moscow (sourced to his memoirs); 811 is about Kesselring ordering air attacks on Moscow "half-heartedly", which Boog again agrees with; and 822 is about Kesselring attitude towards cooperation with the Army (sourced to his memoirs). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sourcing is better in the sections on Mediterranean and North Africa and then on Tunisia, but there's still Kesselring's self-sourced POV ("as Kesselring later wrote..."; "Kesselring strove...", "He succeeded...", "Kesselring managed to..." etc), plus POV writing, i.e. "Things went well at first" -- went well for whom? Douglas Porch's The Path to Victory has two dozen entries in the index for Kesselring in re: this period; it's recent scholarship and Kesselring's 1950s memoirs are simply not needed when secondary sources are available.

  I don't have that book, but I do have two recent works: Gooderstein, A Hard Way to Make a War (2008) and Holland, Italy's Sorrow (2008). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is problematic: "...but was known as "Uncle Albert" by his troops. He was one of the most popular generals of World War II with the German rank and file. His popularity was enhanced by frequent, often unannounced, visits to the front line."

Lingen is misplaced in the Tunisia section, as she does not refer to a particular period, but makes a general observation. Further, Lingen is cited selectively and out of context, as she continues in the same para to describe the Kesselring myth, contrasting the manufactured image of an affable general with his actions in Italy:

During the 1950s, this picture of Kesselring ['Smiling Al', a general with a common touch], which had been presented at his trial, was seized on and embellished by a range of memoirists. Yet when one considers the bloody assaults on whole villages during the Wehrmacht retreat in the summer of 1944, the picture of the 'good general' painted during the trial seems like a travesty.

As we have noted, von Lingen is in error on this point, the sobriquet "Smiling Al" is not a post-war construct. I put the observation (which applies to the whole war) in the Tunisian section with another comment to that effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not notice that Lingen is in error. Instead she writes that Kesselring was called "Uncle Albert" by his troops and "Smiling Al" by the Allies, i.e. during the war. She notes that it was that early image, upon which memorists seized later on. (p. 16)--Assayer (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I provided the very same quote box in my #Nomination statement; I see that the content got relocated from the lead into the body, but the problems with it still remain. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Comments by Assayer

In recent years Kesselring’s biography has been thoroughly analyzed in three main respects.

1. How Kesselring shaped the way war was waged in Italy.
2. How the Allies dealt with war crimes after the war.
3. How the Kesselring case shaped the ways in which the war was remembered in post-war Germany.

Reviewing the article, I think that it falls seriously short of addressing these issues and that it does not make full use of the available sources. (Lingen, Raiber, Sangster, to name only recent monographs dealing exclusively with Kesselring)

• The nature and consequences of Kesselring’s anti-partisan policies are not fully analyzed. Historians like Lutz Klinkhammer, Gerhard Schreiber, Ben Sheperd, and Kerstin von Lingen have all made clear that Kesselring was responsible for escalating the war in Italy during the summer of 1944. The severity of Kesselring’s order of June 1944 went against the more restrained Merkblatt 69/2 issued by the OKW in May 1944. I do not think that the real point is, that “subsequently” massacres were carried out, but that, as Ben Sheperd has argued, frontline units made full use of the license given to them by Kesselring. “Many of the actions committed by the Germans were not reprisals for specific partisan actions, but terror measures aimed at purportedly ‘pro-bandit’ populations.” (Hitler’s Soldiers, p. 412.) The article fails to provide a sufficient account of German warfare against “partisans”, which has been covered extensively by Klinkhammer, Schreiber and Carlo Gentile, to name only a few historians, particularly given the many words spent on the Italian campaign in general and Kesselring’s “defensive genius”. It is not only that the name of Kesselring, whose signature appeared on posters and printed orders announcing draconian measures adopted by the German occupation, had become synonymous with the oppression and terror that had characterised the German occupation. He was not simply blamed. Instead, historians do indeed argue, that Kesselring prescribed mass terror. Thus it is misleading to have a lead section that states He won the respect of his Allied opponents for his military accomplishments, but his record was marred by massacres committed by his troops in Italy, as if he had nothing to do with the terror and as if the terror was not a central part of his defensive strategy. Btw, Sangster argues that Kesselring’s reputation grew “because he faced inadequate opponents”, in other words, the Allied commanders spoke highly of Kesselring to cover up their own blunders and poor leadership. (p.91) That should be adressed.

• The writing also has a strange tone throughout. The article notes, e.g., that Kesselring rescinded his order … deploring incidents that had "damaged the German Wehrmacht's reputation and discipline and which no longer have anything to do with reprisal operations", and launched investigations into specific cases that Mussolini cited. Did Kesselring really deplore his orders? Lingen writes that Kesselring reacted towards Mussolini’s complaints and merely acknowledged such incidents. Kesselring also went on record by saying “I loved the Italians too much. Now I hate them.” Anyway, the investigations, Lingen notes, were halted inconclusively. She also discusses the figures of casualties given, asking whether the term “partisans” referred to all casualties including women and children. (p. 47) I consider it of vital importance that German numbers of casualties are not accepted at face value. It is to be regretted that these numbers are taken from Lingen, whereas her critical analysis is somehow skipped over. Given the sizable literature on German atrocities in Italy (see above) the references (Trial Proceedings, Haaretz, Mitcham) are poor. Instead the section on war crimes concludes with exhortations of Kesselring’s “defensive success”. Conservative estimates give the number of Italian civilians being killed between March and November 1944 alone as 7,500 men, women, and children. (Sheperd, Hitler's Soldiers, p. 412)

• Kesselring’s subsequent trial has been discussed with considerable detail by Lingen and others. The article, however, does not really discuss these issues. I find that to be disproportionate compared, e.g., to the lengthy quotes of favorable statements by Churchill and Alexander. Besides, the judgement implied that reprisal killings were not justified during wartime. Thus, the court did not leave that question open. It was the Judge Advocate who maintained that the legality of that was not clear cut. Court proceedings should not be interpreted by Wikipedians, particularly when rich secondary sources are available. (see also Michele Battini, The Missing Italian Nuremburg, 2007.) Richard Raiber’s book bears the title Anatomy of Perjury, but we do not learn much abut Kesselring’s lies in the article.

• Lingen argues persuasively, I think, that after 1945 Kesselring became an effective proponent of the wrong notion that the Wehrmacht had fought a clean war in Italy. Wikipedia, however, uses a Time article from 1954 to have Kesselring protesting the "unjustly smirched reputation of the German soldier" and so forth. I find that particularly weak.

• Given that there is secondary literature which made use of Kesselring’s memoirs I do not really see the point why Wikipedians have to make use of it themselves. It should be clear from the outset that memoirs are not reliable sources and that Kesselring’s views have to be contrasted with other sources. I would say, e.g., that the information that Kesselring was able to fly unescorted over the front in his Focke-Wulf Fw 189 reconnaissance aircraft, is intricate detail. What is the encyclopedic value of information like he stated that first-hand knowledge of all aspects of aviation was essential to being able to command airmen, although he was well aware that latecomers like himself did not impress the old pioneers or the young aviators? Sometimes it even becomes funny: In his post-war memoirs, Kesselring claimed he envisioned making a start on the rehabilitation of Germany following the end of the war.[192] Instead, he was arrested. What are we to make out of that information? Was Germany saved from Kesselring's rehabilitating efforts or deceived of it?

--Assayer (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Addendum: I take notice that Hawkeye7 argues that Kesselring's take on the issue of non-rated officers is important, because it is a controversial one in many navies and air forces. In the US there area actually laws about it, so it is of interest to the reader. It is implausible, that Albert Kesselring's private opinions on that issue, stated in his memoirs, are of any interest for and sought after by any navy and air force. Who would care to look for that information in an article about such an individual?Assayer (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This addendum is typical of Assayer's criticisms, and closely matches K.e.coffman's. They both have demonstrated over an extended period significant deficiencies in understanding what is a relevant piece of information for a military biography (the lack of military biography FAs to which they have contributed is a further indication of this), and both constantly harp on about useful and interesting information that has been included in good faith in the interests of our readers. With these two editors, this only occurs in the cases of Nazis, and they show no interest in removing similar information from articles about people who are not Nazis, despite the fact that such information is common in articles about non-Nazis. Explaining that Kesselring felt it was necessary for him to be able to fly an aircraft in order to command people who were flying aircraft is directly relevant to his biography, and their opposition to its inclusion is frankly ridiculous. Kesselring's decision in this respect reflects a common feeling amongst military leaders that they must show that they are capable of doing the things that they are asking their men to do. It is integral to military leadership, and is ingrained through training and by example. All this comment does is underline the editor's lack of understanding about such matters. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yours is an argumentum ad hominem, suggesting both incompetence and an ideological agenda while sidestepping my main arguments. If that particular information is directly relevant to his biography, it should be easy to provide references from secondary literature. It is easy to provide multiple references that Kesselring escalated the war in Italy through terror and therefore that information is integral to Kesselring’s biography. I maintain that memoirs should not be used by Wikipedians as they are notoriously unreliable sources, and I do not see it as problematic to focus on my expertise, namely German history 1933 to 1945. --Assayer (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to point out a pattern of editing behaviour and a demonstrated lack of experience or knowledge in these matters. My comment was not directed at your earlier points, only the addendum regarding Kesselring's flying, so I am sidestepping nothing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's called WP:ASPERSIONS and has been dealt with by ArbCom. You are invited to comment on content, not to allege deficiencies.--Assayer (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

In response to your points:

• The article covers the war against partisans. The main point is Kesselring's culpability for incitement, one of the charges that he was sentenced top death for. Going into who was actually responsible for what area, and the degree of authority Kesselring exercised over what units would obscure what is his clear guilt when it came to incitement. (Alexander's own guilt with regard to incitement and escalation goes a long way to explaining his own attitude and pushing of the "clean war" myth.)
• The partisan war is covered in the article. We carefully selected incidents to demonstrate the effect, to refute the "clean war myth", and that SS units were the only ones responsible, which was not the case. There is also another myth, in Italy, that partisans were primarily responsible for the ejection of the Germans from Italy, which is not accepted by military historians. The figures for German casualties indicate that they are low compared to the number of civilian casulaties.
• The article devotes considerable space to Kesselring's trial. We could go into the legal questions and issues regarding the the taking of hostages and killings in reprisals.
• We could add a "reputation" section, but it will read like the quote from Citino, citing notable historians praising him as a genius, noting the minority view of Sangster, and von Lingen's assessment of his reputation in Germany.
• As to who would care to look for that information in an article about such an individual; It's been done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The article does indeed deal with the war against partisans. But the question is: Does it deal with it sufficiently? I maintain that it is somewhat ill conceived to select “incidents”, i.e. massacres, when the point is terror against the population (see references above). This is also not about Kesselring’s authority over certain units. Sheperd makes clear that “Kesselring’s order gave his units free rein, but each unit’s particular condition and characteristics determined how to use it.” (Hitler’s soldiers, p. 412) If it is well established that Kesselring "incited" and ordered his troops to kill civilians, why delegate that to the bottom of the lead as part of the war crimes trial? War crime trials may for some smack of victor’s justice, challenging the legitimacy of the judgement. If the discussion of Kesselring’s responsibility is to rest with his conviction, however, it is even more necessary to make use of the trial proceedings, e.g. to note, that during the trial it was confirmed that the SS was in fact subordinated to the Wehrmacht in the operations against the partisans. (Battini, Missing Italian Nuremburg, p. 88). Instead the article informs the readers, that the court "left open the question of the legality of killing innocent persons in reprisals" and uses somewhat elusive wordings like "his record was marred by massacres committed by his troops in Italy".

I find Lingen’s treatment of casualty figures much more sophisticated than that to be found in the article, where its is claimed that “some 9,520 partisans were killed”, a label called into question by Lingen by asking whether it included women and children. It does not make much sense to have a section on “reputation”, but it does make sense to note a change in historiographical judgement. Lingen and Sangster represent recent scholarship. The question is not whether they are in the minority, but whether they have refashioned Kesselring’s image. I found an interesting review of Macksey’s bio by Stephen G. Fritz from 1997.[11] Without going into detail here I find that review to offer a more balanced approach than that provided by Wikipedia. For example, Fritz argues that Kesselring's “stubborn refusal to see the obvious in North Africa and recommend to Hitler, with whom he had considerable influence, a timely withdrawal from the Tunisian pocket led to the destruction and capture of some of the finest troops in the German army”. Wikipedia only claims: “In return, Kesselring had, however, held up the Allies in Tunisia for six months, forcing a postponement of the Allied invasion of Northern France from the middle of 1943 to the middle of 1944.” I have not been able, however, to back up that claim with the reference given, namely Howe, p. 666. Instead Howe writes on p. 677:

The decision to gamble on occupying French North Africa ahead of the Axis forces led to a failure in December which could not be remedied before May 1943. One may well doubt that this failure alone caused deferment of a cross-Channel attack until 1944, in view of the many other considerations involved. But one important conclusion concerning the relation of the decision to occupy French North Africa to the fundamental Allied strategy seems beyond question. Even if the Allies had succeeded in establishing a bridge-head in Normandy in 1943, their experience in Tunisia demonstrated that they would have been unprepared for breaking out of this bridgehead and thrusting far toward the heart of Nazi Germany. This experience they gained by meeting the enemy at the outer periphery of the area to be liberated at a time when the Eastern Front continued to absorb the bulk of Axis military power.

As to Kesselring learning to fly – that information can be found, e.g., with Sangster, p. 44, so there is no need to make recourse to his memoirs.--Assayer (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added the bit from Sangster, and have rewritten the conclusion to the North African campaign per Howe, with which I agree completely. People have written whole books on an Allied landing in northern France in 1943, but the consensus is that it was doomed once the commitment was made to North Africa in 1942. I have some more details on the casualty figures for partisans, which I will add. The assessment of Macksey's biography you found is interesting. His errors are indeed numerous and and include important details, and as the article points out, Macksey is frequently more upbeat than Kesselring's own account. I note that the article doesn't mention Kesselring's war criminal status, which I think any 21st century account would, a sign of the major change in historiographical judgement. And I will try and get my hands on a copy of Battini. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delist. The article has a hat-full of problems. The worst of which is POV. I see no prospect of anything much changing. Szzuk (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has extensive material about Kesselring's authorization of reprisals against partisans. The lead even mentions the atrocities committed and the Ardeatine massacre - this is definitely not burying it. Kges1901 (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Partly on the strength of this summary by Hawkeye, which, so far as I can tell from reading the article and following the history, is accurate. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I came back to this to see what the decision was, realised that it was still open, and so read the delist (only) comments below to see if there was anything which might cause me to change my mind. The only one which gave me pause was Assayer's on the weight given to a 1954 Time Magazine article. This does not seem appropriate. Otherwise, as a moderately active FAC reviewer (over 50 reviews so far this year), I find nothing weighty enough to cause what seems an entirely FA-worthy article to be delisted. I do not wish to put words in the mouths of those favouring delist, but they seem to either attach undue weight to their favoured sources, or wish to have well sourced facts removed or reduced in prominence. I find neither convincing, nor grounds for delisting. The valid grounds initially identified for reviewing this article seem to me to have been satisfactorily addressed, and there seems to be an ongoing commitment to maintaining the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delist. Clear POV which has not been adequately addressed. Why do we lead off an article on a war criminal, who adamantly denied culpability for his actions, with panygerics such as "most skilful", "highly decorated", mention of a Nazi military award, and "most popular"? And (to address a comment made above) there is no such thing as an "an implied consensus for inclusion". It doesn't matter if it was added yesterday, or by some fanboy 15 years ago (and I have not checked on who added it, or when) — the content is what matters. The slanted point of view here is contested and must be addressed, and the refusal to do so is troubling. Kablammo (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment coming to this late, I will review the article in the next few days, post any concerns on talk and then decide which way I'm leaning. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing here that can't be fixed by stepwise editing. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG and Sturmvogel 66: While I appreciate your engagement here, a more complete evaluation of this article relative to the FA criteria would be more helpful at this point than a simple keep/delist. What issues remain that can be fixed by stepwise editing? Do you agree with some of the concerns above and just think they're fixable, or do you disagree that what's been raised above is of concern? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I just don't see this as an article-on-fire situation. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - as I have previously noted above, some valid concerns were raised at the start of this FAR but edits have been made to address these. Zawed (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Issues were raised in some detail about the neutrality and comprehensiveness of this article. After reading through the concerns and checking the changes made, it is clear that the issues have been addressed. Some further improvements could perhaps be made -- I am sure that all of those involved here would be happy to work together on that -- but that does not require nor justify delisting. MPS1992 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. There are two votes on the talk page from established editors. Both call this a "Pro Nazi" article or similar. Szzuk (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  Of what relevance is that? Were they made after this FAR process? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Peacemaker67: One was made in 2017, and I'm not able to find the other one at this moment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • There are some portrait pictures of him smiling on commons that might be appropriate to illustrate the "Tunisia" section.
  • There is one image, File:De_nieuwe_generaal-veldmaarschalken_van_de_Luftwaffe.jpg, that is nominated for deletion. I don't think there is a need to rush to remove it since it will either be kept if unproblematic or deleted if ineligible. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

    I don't think its removal will affect the article, which has plenty of illustrations. It has been listed for months now. But I don't want to add any more from the same source until the matter is resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Should "LXXXX" in the "Tunisia" section be "XC"? DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

    In German, LXXXX is used, but the American source cited uses XC, so changed to that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • My main concern are some parts that could benefit from further work to improve neutrality:
    • The aircraft losses for Barbarossa contradict those given (cited to the same source as this article) in the article on the operation. What seems to have happened here is a selective comparison of specific Axis losses against total Soviet losses: this is an unfair comparison. Either the total Soviet losses of 21,200 should be compared to the total German losses of 2,827; or the same selective algorithm should be applied to both sides, not just to the German one. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

      I cannot explain the figure given in the Barbarossa article. I have the cited source before me, and it says total German losses were 2,093. Used that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

    • "Kesselring managed to delay the Allies in Sicily for another month; the Allied conquest of Sicily was not complete until 17 August." Five weeks to take Sicily is not actually that slow, and "conquest" seems a loaded term. Recommend: "Kesselring managed to delay the Allies in Sicily for another month until 17 August...He was able to evacuate 40,000 men, plus 96,605 vehicles..." DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

      The US official history uses the term repeatedly. See pp. 25, 53, 261. It is also the title of Alexander's official despatch. [12] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

    • In the section on the "Allied invasion of Sicily", it is not clear to me why we are told about Gonzaga, 184 Airborne Division or F Recce Squadron. This should be related to Kesselring. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

      I was trying to convey the chaotic response in Italy, but it perhaps drifted too far. Removed this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

    • In the "Cassino and Anzio" section, the statement "The consequences for the Italian population [of Operation Strangle] were severe; between June 1940 and April 1945, 59,796 Italian civilians and 4,558 Italian servicemen died in Allied air raids" is unconvincing and logically flawed. The paragraph is about 2 months in 1944, but the casualty figure is for the entire war. Clearly, there were many Allied air raids when Italy was an Axis power. If the figure cannot be reduced to only those who died during that specific bombing campaign, then the claim should be removed. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

      The air raids were few before May 1943 because Italy was out of range. The raids steadily incresed in number and intensity through 1944. In 1943, when the US Army Air Forces assumed responsibility for most Italian operations, the American bombers dropped 46,448 tons of bombs on Italy. In 1944, the Allies dropped 166,494 tons of bombs. Between January and early May 1945, an additional 63,370 tons of bombs were dropped. The restraints on bombing in France to limit civilian casualties were not in effect in Italy as it was not an Allied country. I did have some figures with a breakdown of civilian casualties, but they have been lost, and archive.org did not archive them. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • (Minor point: Some references end in a period, while others don't. They should be consistent.) DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

    Corrected this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Keep. Individual comments have either led to changes in the article or been answered with counter-arguments. FAR isn't dispute resolution. The delist arguments are unconvincing when they complain about things such as a lack of coverage of the Italian terror campaign, even though the lead contains explicit statements such as "his record was marred by massacres committed by his troops in Italy" and "Kesselring was tried for war crimes and sentenced to death for ordering the murder of 335 Italian civilians, and for inciting and ordering his troops to kill civilians in reprisals". DrKay (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Nom's comment. @JzG and Sturmvogel 66: The concern is that normal editing has not worked in the past. I had attempted to reduce Kesselring's self-serving POV cited to his memoirs: diff, Feb 2019, but that was reverted with the rationale that "tweaking the wording is not acceptable; the wording has been carefully reviewed...": [13].

After TP discussion which was not productive: Talk:Albert_Kesselring#Feb 2019 edit, I reached out to FA nom and suggested collaboratively editing the article, with a view of avoiding the FAR: [14]. This was also rejected: [15]. I could try editing the article again and see what happens. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Any substantial editing is going to cause friction. It is easier to follow the discussion when there is a list of specific points like the one in my review, where each point can be answered in turn. Having said that, I don't think it will be useful to re-visit points made and discussed in the past (such as whether to use the memoirs) as the consensus appears to be that they can be used if suitably attributed and balanced with any counter-evidence. DrKay (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comments moved to #Comments by K.e.coffmand. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should all agree with User:K.e.coffman that his improvements of articles regarding topics like these, are something that will be continued, long into the future. The reality is that numerous editors with knowledge of the subject have now assessed the arguments made regarding this specific article, and it's time to make a decision. Careful assessment of the article, indicates that it should remain as a Featured Article. MPS1992 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I've been through the article in detail and have made some changes and suggested others which have been addressed, and I just do not see the alleged issues with neutrality and coverage that some see, or accept K.e.coffman's perennial argument about what constitutes trivia in military history biographies. His memoirs provide a valuable insight into his thinking at different stages along with his motivations and they are now properly attributed throughout. The final thing I will say is that the laudatory comment in the lead about his skilful command should probably read "most skilful defensive commanders" as he really had no offensive record to speak of, and defensive operations are a very different beast to offensive operations. Otherwise, there has been significant improvement during the FAR, and while I'm sure there are tweaks here and there that can be addressed piecemeal, I don't consider that justifies delisting what is now an excellent article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Delist. As I have argued above[16], the article neglects major facts and details, it is not well researched, and it is not a representative survey of the relevant literature. Thus, as of today it fails WP:FA?.--Assayer (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Assayer: Your last edits before this FAR were over 4 months ago in another FAR initiated by K.e.coffman in April 2019. Are you here to build an encyclopedia or pop up every once in a while when K.e.coffman needs a WP:TAGTEAM partner? --Pudeo (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• reply.--Assayer (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I am not quite sure how to proceed. Researching critical parts of the article I do not find them to be in line with recent research. For example, Kesselring's role in saving Rome as an “open city” is much more controversial than the article, which features Kesselring as a scrupulous leader and the Allies as being ruthless, makes us to believe. For example, on 4 February 1944 Kesselring proposed, among other things, the demolition of all bridges across the Tiber. Hitler himself may have forbidden their destruction for their historical and artistic merit. (Fisher, Cassino to the Alps, p. 203.) A report from Weizsäcker to the Vatican suggests that Kesselring regretted the bad shape of the roads around Rome, so that there had to be transports through the city. (Helmut Goetz, Das Attentat in Rom und die Fosse Ardeatine (1944). Eine vorläufige Bilanz. In: Innsbrucker Historische Studien 6, 1983, pp. 161-178, here p. 164.) Goetz argues that Rome was neither de jure nor de facto an open city, but that the notion of an open city was a fiction. (Ibid.) Lingen writes, the open city status of Rome and Florence was rendered meaningless in practice by both sides. (p. 37)

As to the Ardeatine massacre, researchers have argued that it is doubtful that an order by Hitler existed, most certainly not a second order, possibly not even a first order. See Kurt Mälzer#Military Commander of Rome with references.

It had been claimed that Kesselring used the Jews of Rome as labour for the construction of fortifications, and resisted their deportation, but Hitler transferred responsibility to the SS. I have used literature which made use of the new evidence made accessible by the US National Archives in 2000 to clarify that story. “Resistance” is a much-discussed concept in the historiography of Nazi Germany, and while Kesselring for whatever reasons might have helped to obstruct the deportations for some time, there are no sources that claim he “resisted”.

I do not see that such issues are to be addressed within short notice, nor do I see a particular willingness to engage with sources such as I have provided.--Assayer (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

We just need to find the right word. I'm not happy with "obstruct". As you point out, some people might construe "resist" to mean the "resistance" (although I think that's unlikely given the context), whereas "obstruct" may connote an intent that was not there. 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You've written: Historian Andrew Sangster argues that while Kesselring was undoubtedly anti-Semitic, he never played an active role in the Holocaust. Despite his denials Kesselring must have known of these crimes and his guilt lies "in his unquestioning support of Hitler who had made the Holocaust a priority."

That is indeed what Sangster says, but here's an obvious contradiction here between the article saying that "he never played an active role in the Holocaust" and placing him in Category:Holocaust perpetrators in Italy. My argument has been that the use of Jews for slave labour was part of the Holocaust. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I purposely did not use the word obstruct, when I rewrote that passage in the article, but simply recounted what is known. For Breitman the newly available sources implied that Möllhausen was only about to reach out to Kesselring on 6 October. Breitman is highly critical of Katz, who sort of tends to believe Kappler's post-war defence. Katz follows a different chronology outlined by Möllhausen himself. For NPOV reasons I considered articles by both authors. The sources do not warrant, however, to draw further conclusions about Kesselring's actions and motivations. In fact, Kesselring's role seems to have been marginal. It should furthermore be clear, that no Jewish slave labor was actually used on German fortifications around Rome. That was just an idea proposed by Möllhausen to block the imminent deportation. I found Sangster's assessment useful as a historian's comment. I did not spend much thought on the issue of Wikipedia categories. --Assayer (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delist per the comprehensive recent review by Assayer, which proves this isn't going to be a simple matter. I find it troublesome that editors make comments such as "keep" per this comment, which essentially says the entire FA critique is a lie. That comment by Hawkeye is practically blockworthy already, and that someone would find that amusing and worth citing is pretty revolting. And it's odd--if Hawkeye thinks it's all a lie, why is he spending so much time following up on these comments? But, in the end, Assayer's comments are already good enough to sway me. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything blockworthy in the comment in that diff nor a sense that it is amusing? I personally perhaps wouldn't have characterised K.e.coffman's list as untrue but instead incorrect, at least partially; for example, point 3 alleges failure to reflect recent scholarship but Lingen, cited by other reviewers as recent scholarship, is used. Another source, Citino, also referred to by reviewers, was incorporated as a consequence of the review. As for your comment "if Hawkeye thinks it's all a lie, why is he spending so much time following up on these comments?", it seems to me that his followup is good faith engagement with the review process. Finally, from the tone of your comments here and earlier in the review, I wouldn't have thought you needed any swaying towards delisting. Zawed (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Drmies you need to take a deep breath and step back, if you think any of Hawkeye7's comments during this FAR are blockworthy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• User:Peacemaker67, I am too old to be patronized by you. Be mindful of manners, please, and drop the personal attacks--you may recall there was an ArbCom case where making things personal was cited as one of the disruptive things. You will note that I commented on comments, not on the person, unlike you. If you do not understand that difference, don't comment at all. "This is untrue" is first of all an accusation of lying and thus a serious denial of AGF--this is not news. Second, if the complaints are untrue, and the editor seriously believes that, then the editor shouldn't act upon them as if they were true.

  Zawed, if you characterize a list as incorrect, that's fine (in this case you're wrong, as this review proves)--but if you call something a bunch of lies, and then you go on to correct the things that you thus claimed were true, you are also admitting that they weren't lies. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've made no personal attacks, I've made observations on the editing behaviour of two editors based on long experience, which I can back up with many diffs, many of which I used in the ArbCom case, particularly with respect to K.e.coffman. Hawkeye7's response is not an accusation of lying or a failure to assume good faith, it is a difference of opinion about substantive matters which, last time I checked, editors were allowed to have on Wikipedia. K.e.coffman's comments are not automatically true or even germane just because he is the one making them. These questions are determined by consensus, such as what is happening here regarding the keeping or delisting of this article, and they are not determined by threats. Your mention of a block was a clear attempt to intimidate Hawkeye7 into making changes he does not agree with, and you should withdraw it because it was completely inappropriate. That is why you need to take a deep breath and step back. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have to agree that some of your comments were ad hominem. I have great respect for Hawkeye7 and I think he just got carried away. Why not we all focus on the content not the contributors and not whether they "lie" or "don't have experience with military history." Please. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67, you made a personal attack (a patronizing comment), and right after you said you didn't do it you repeated it. That's foolish. As for my comment toward Hawkeye, your annotation is silly. How can I intimidate if not by threatening a block? How can I threaten a block when I am obviously involved, given my comments here? I am very surprised at your commentary here, since I thought you'd be older and wiser than that. In the end, someone like you should realize that you can't get on Wikipedia and tell another editors "that's all lies". If you really don't know that, please reread the relevant policies, starting with WP:AGF. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delist. Deeply flawed as per Assayer, and POV wording noted above concerning a convicted war criminal is deeply disturbing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I added further comments to the #Western Europe section. I'm planning to do Soviet Union and Mediterranean next. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per the arguments presented by Hawkeye7 and Gog the Mild. Applodion (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: In the course of the review, I reached out to the historian David Stahel. For background, he was one of the historians who had provided a statement during ARBGWE. Stahel gave me permission to publish this statement as part of the discussion (links have been added by me):

1 September 2019

My name is Dr David Stahel and I am a senior lecturer in history at the University of New South Wales, Canberra. I also team-teach the Second World War course at the Australian Defence Force Academy. I have authored/edited numerous books on the German army in the Second World War, including five with the Cambridge University Press.

Reading this debate on Kesselring, I feel compelled to comment that the constant attempts to obfuscate Kesselring’s role in the Second World War and include self-serving assertions on the basis of his memoirs are simply untenable. The engagement with wider academic works is selective in my opinion (especially sections from Kerstin von Lingen) and seems consistently calculated to present a self-indulgent image of Kesselring backed by a guise of scholarly legitimacy. Likewise, those who have directly attacked some of these myths (like Robert M. Citino) are simply dismissed.

Much of this debate would never appear in more scholarly circles. I have previously written about the problems of Wikipedia’s coverage on the Wehrmacht, in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies. It does not matter how much excellent research is produced if it is skewed and manipulated for public forums like Wikipedia. I cannot understand why sensible changes, in line with accepted academic writing norms (proposed K.e.coffman and Assayer), are so fiercely resisted.

Let me be blunt: portions of the article (as reviewed) read like Kesselring apologia. I cannot help but feel this discussion is less a debate and more an ideological contest. Normally, I would leave that to the internet, but too many people, including my students, read Wikipedia.

References

@Nikkimaria: I hope you would consider this statement when it comes to closing the discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Coord note: In case anyone is unaware, there is a current ARCA request with relevance to this review. Any and all perceived behavioral issues should be addressed in that forum or in some other form of DR rather than here. This is neither DR, nor a vote - commentary should be focused on the FA criteria and explain specifically how this article does or does not meet them. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delist as the article still contains serious neutrality violations. I'm currently reading the article, and I found a particularly egregious example in the very first case where I looked at the sources in detail (now corrected as best as I can). Specifically, this is about whether Kesselring's 1940 bombardment of Rotterdam was a war crime:

• The van den Doel source (pg 389-90) discusses four ways that the bombing may have violated the laws of war, (articles 25, 26, and 27, as well as the preamble). It dismisses article 25 but describes ambiguity for all of the others. (For article 26, the issue is in the reference to "two hours," since that isn't sufficient notice to evacuate the city.) However, the article simply stated that there was no issue with regards to article 25 (not an open city), and said nothing about the parts that may have actually been violated, implying pretty strongly (in contradiction to the source) that the bombardment was not a war crime.
• This was then followed by a several-sentence quote stating that the bombing should not be considered a terror attack (i.e. that it served a legitimate military objective). However, I pretty shortly found another source (Sangster pg 56), already in use elsewhere in the article, which directly states that historians are actually divided on this question. In fact, the vd Doel source itself states (top of pg 389) that its viewpoint is not universal, but the article does not acknowledge this.
• The sentence containing the quote (paraphrased) said According to X, using the term Y would be "Z. This is simply not the case" - which seems like a pretty clear statement that person X thinks using term Y is incorrect or invalid. However, this is directly opposed by the quote's context:

1. The historian (vd Doel) does not, in fact, reject the term Y ("terror bombing"), instead only calling it "less apt". (Technically it is also possible to interpret "Z" in the correct way, i.e. the way the source intended, but even then it is obscured by the sentence structure and manner of quotation.)
2. The quote then cut off mid-sentence in a way that altered the meaning: specifically, the rest of it is "...neither for Schmidt nor for Göring". The context is a discussion about Schmidt and Göring, and the claim in the source is that Schmidt and Göring weren't intending to directly target civilians in Rotterdam. However, in the article it was put into a description of Kesselring's actions. He's the only person mentioned in the paragraph (aside from the quote's attribution), and he was the one that the quote appeared to be about.

When also considering the comments above, I think the article needs to be checked source by source for verification. There are also major issues with undue weight, with a particular theme of taking information that would put Kesselring in a bad light and wording it in a way that makes it seem positive, or else minimizing it behind relatively unimportant details. To take an example on the same topic, the bombing of Rotterdam is introduced by emphasizing that Kesselring was "responding to a request for assistance," with the sentence ordered to make it the first thing the reader learns about the subject, before even describing what actually happened! While this can be legitimate, it's a pattern that repeats rather consistently; and if anyone doesn't find that particular type of phrasing to be a problem, the same theme occurs in plenty of other forms. (And as an aside, that description is also arguable at best. Certainly there's no mention that, as described in the same source, it was part of a German threat to deliberately destroy the city if the Dutch didn't surrender. Yes, there was some kind of miscommunication where the deadline was supposed to be pushed back, but "request for assistance" sounds like a very odd way to describe the situation.) Since this is the state of the article after this much effort has already been spent, I don't think it will be able to meet FA standards any time soon. Sunrise (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• More comments at: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Albert_Kesselring/archive1#Soviet Union to Tunisia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

comment I think some aspects of David Stahl's remarks need to be challenged. In what way does this article obfuscate Kesselring's role in the Second World War? Specifically, what role are we discussing here? The military failures or the murders he ordered? Wikipedia is not an academic forum, and editors do their best with the sources under the limitations imposed on them by the guidelines — and most editors are not academics. We should not being making the assumption they have been deliberately misused. I am also interested in what Robert Citino has to say about Kesselring and where. Dapi89 (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Citino discusses Kesselring in his books The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943 (2012) and The Wehrmacht's Last Stand: The German Campaigns of 1944-1945 (2017). He notes the opinions of Carlo D'Este, Shelford Bidwell, Dominick Graham and others that Kesselring was a great general, but notes that Kesselring fought a defensive battle in Italy on ground of his chosing, whereas Model and Manstein had to fight Soviet armies under more adverse conditions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I agree that the subject's memoirs should be disregarded unless they are used to state basic information, such as name, birth date etc. The information provided by his memoirs in this article can be found in reliable sources. Dapi89 (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - I have read this article in detail and have followed the discussions on this page. Actionable statements have been met with good faith edits (or rebuttals as necessary) that I feel have satisfied the goal of this article remaining at Featured quality. Additional vague remarks about POV or comprehensiveness are not convincing to me, as they are not accompanied by reasonable or actionable examples. This is not a dispute resolution forum. --Laser brain (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• keep. I don't see a conspiracy to idolise Kesselring. I think the article currently marks him out as a delusional, unapologetic, opportunistic, murdering careerist. His release by the Allied authorities is yet another disgraceful episode in treatment of German war criminals, which is also covered. I personally would like to see more on military analysis now. I'm tired of reading about these so-called geniuses on the internet and on television. It's one myth that needs to tackled across the board. Dapi89 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Closing comments so here we are at 6 months in and there is still a POV tag at the top of the article. We alos have multiple editors still not apply with it. Hence there is no consensus to keep the article. I am sorry about this as alot of work has gone into it.Hence
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Poland

The section describes a Western-type military commander. But he was oblidged to be cruel (Hitler: "Größte Härte..." ) and the Luftwaffe bombed civilians of Warsaw, which should be mentioned. The Jewish quarter was bombed on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Gutman finds the connection probable. The Jews of Warsaw, 1939-1943: Ghetto, Underground, Revolt

Kessselring indoctrinated or allowed to indoctrinate his soldiers The Indoctrination of the Wehrmacht: Nazi Ideology and the War Crimes of the German Military.Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.de/Gr%C3%B6%C3%9Fte-H%C3%A4rte-Verbrechen-Wehrmacht-Ausstellungskatalog/dp/3938400072 Xx236 (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That book doesn't mention Kesselring at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is ignored here and Italy has a section Actions affecting population and cultural objects. It's typical Western POV, dehumanization of Eastern Europeans, firs by the Nazis, later by Western historians and now by biased Wikipedia editors.Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: The reason is that I do not have any books on the air campaign in Poland, and so relied on Kesselring's account. I have one paper on the development of close air support in the campaign. The two-month campaign only warrants a paragraph or two, but can you recommend another source? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see point about UNDUE, or rather, about the Polish section being rather too short, but nothing jumps to mind. Perhaps Andrew Sangster (2015). Field-Marshal Kesselring: Great Commander Or War Criminal?. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 57–. ISBN 978-1-4438-7676-6.} would be a good to consult, currently it is not even in the bibliography? That said, I don't see that it has an extensive discussion of Poland. Polish Wikipedia has no useful sources in the article, so I am afraid that's all I have after few minutes of searching. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I have that book. (And his PhD thesis too.) Von Lingen is still the best source on Kesselring, but her book is not a full-blown biography. (Although no one is better qualified to write one.) I have nothing tying Kesselring to indoctrination, and he isn't mentioned in the book cited above. The Holy Grail for me would be something tying him to SS activities in Belorussia. The closest thing I've found is a paper on Göring's plan to turn part of north-eastern Poland into a private Nazi hunting forest. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Did Kesselring order his pilots to respect international law? They bombed Warsaw hospitals, so the Poles removed banners from roofs.http://www.polska-zbrojna.pl/home/articleshow/26213?t=Zbrodnie-Luftwaffe-w-kampanii-1939-rokuXx236 (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he did, and this has more to do with the limitations of airpower, and the accuracy of bombing. I will rework the section. On re-reading Kesselring's account, I was struck by his praise of the performance of the Polish Air Force. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The Germans themselves documented their cruelty in propaganda documentary Feuertaufe, 1940. https://archive.org/details/1940-FeuertaufeXx236 (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no doubt about this. In the aftermath, Kesselring established bases in occupied Poland. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm late to this one, but if there is an issue with the German air campaign Poland I can assist with sources. Dapi89 (talk) 07:41, 4 September 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:

• De nieuwe generaal-veldmaarschalken van de Luftwaffe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"Storm of protest"

The article says that the death verdict unleashed a "storm of protest" in the UK. Is that in a source, or is it the editor's characterization? Why is there no mention of the Italian reaction to the verdict, or to the "storm of protest in Italy" (von Lingen, p. 238) when he was released? Kablammo (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Heavy bombers and bombing

The persistence of authors, academic or otherwise, in making the case that Kesselring didn't support building a strategic bombing capability is contradicted by experts in air power affairs and the primary sources they use. Kesselring was in favour, and it suited his view of air power, which was to be used as ruthlessly as he felt necessary. James Corum and Williamson Murray began covering this over 35 years ago. Dapi89 (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

finally found the passage that demonstrates Kesselring had nothing to do with the cancellation of the Ural bomber project either. Dapi89 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverts

@Hawkeye7: You seem to have reverted me twice while using edit summaries that referred only to unrelated changes made in the same edits: [17] which reverted [18], and [19] which reverted [20] and part of [21]. Could you please clarify whether or not this was accidental? (If so, I’d also be curious to know it was able to happen given that in both cases, there were intervening edits that were left untouched.) Sunrise (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Featured articles are required to be grammatically correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

...Okay, I see that one part of my edits contained an arguable grammatical error, which could benefit from a minor rewording. Did you have any other objections? I also don't think that grammar is a possible reason for the removal without comment of a clarification tag. Sunrise (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I restored the tag which was removed here: [22], without discussion nor improvements to the article. The areas for improvement were noted in the Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1 earlier this year, which have not been addressed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion at FAR. All issues were addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

the link provided by Coffman on the edit summary shows the majority support Hawkeye7's reply. Dapi89 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The FAR was closed as "Delist", indicating that the NPOV issues were not resolved. –dlthewave ☎ 21:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The FAR delist overrode the consensus and had nothing whatsoever to do with the state of the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That is true. I would like to see a constructive approach from all parties, going forward. MPS1992 (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• I restored the tag; my rationale was: "local consensus on the page does not override conclusion/delisting @ Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1". The FAR closing statement was:

• Closing comments so here we are at 6 months in and there is still a POV tag at the top of the article. We alos have multiple editors still not apply [happy?] with it. Hence there is no consensus to keep the article. I am sorry about this as alot of work has gone into it. Hence {{FARClosed|delisted}}

Further to Dapi89, please refrain from including insults in your edit summaries, as was done here: [23]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• The only reason I left the tag there was because the FAR had not been closed. I have removed it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It was a fact, not an insult coffmann, as you well know. Dapi89 (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The tag is purely to notify editors of an ongoing discussion. It must be removed if there is no ongoing discussion, and there isn't one. The outcome of the FAR has nothing to do with it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I thought it was self-evident that there were still neutrality concerns given the delisting. See for example:

• Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Albert_Kesselring/archive1#A_few_comments
• Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Albert_Kesselring/archive1#Lead_through_the_Poland_section
• Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Albert_Kesselring/archive1#Comments_by_Assayer

Much of the content that's been objected to during FAR is still in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

These were addressed, and the discussion was closed. Once the discussion was closed, the tag had to be removed. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The article was delisted because issues were identified during FAR that had not been corrected. To described it as "all issues were addressed" and that the discussion was simply "closed" is not how things went down. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but the discussion ended months ago. You got what you wanted; the article was delisted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This is incorrect, as my intention has always been to improve the article. It saddens me that it's come to such accusations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Albert Kesselring/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Placed on hold

I was not aware when I picked this article out of the GAN list that it carries a POV banner. That needs to be resolved before I can even begin a formal review. I would therefore like to hear from other editors including Alaney2k, Casliber, Dapi89, Hawkeye7, K.e.coffman, Sturmvogel 66, Sunrise and Szzuk if the banner can be lifted. If there is no consensus on this by the end of next week, I will fail the GAR. If the banner can be removed, I'll commence the review. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CaroleHenson, Eddie891, Editoneer, Harrias, HickoryOughtShirt?4, Hog Farm, Hurricane Noah, Hurricanehink, Kingsif, Lee Vilenski, MWright96, MarioSoulTruthFan, Mujinga, Peacemaker67, The Rambling Man, Usernameunique and Vami_IV. Sorry to bother you with this but given your interest and involvement in the GAN drive, I wonder if any of you would like to comment on the issue which is currently delaying this GAR. Some of you might have encountered similar problems. If so, please join the discussion below. Thanks for your time. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole. I ignored it in the WP:Germany Article alerts because I am way out of my depth here. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I share the opinion of the user above. Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The majority favoured its removal last time I looked. Dapi89 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Checked again; twice the number voted to keep it as featured, so an overwhelming majority. The delisting from featured status was a sham. Dapi89 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is not the time or place to relitigate the FAR. Last time I checked the article had been delisted from FA due to POV issues, which have yet to be addressed. Therefore, the banner seems appropriate to me. I would also note that consensus is NOTAVOTE. buidhe 02:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• The banner must be removed when any of the following apply:

• 1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

• Nos 2 and 3 apply here, so the banner must be removed. The article was not delisted from FA due to POV issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@User:Buidhe: Yes it is. That is why we're here. Dapi89 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• @No Great Shaker:, you are clearly correct that the GA can not be passed with the banner in place. As mentioned, this is not the place to rehash the FAR per say. However, in the course of your review, you will have to make your own judgement regarding the neutrality of the article per WP:GACR #4. I suspect that and WP:GACR #5 will be the critical factors in this review; if the banner is removed without agreement, then it will just be replaced etc. As you have done, encouraging a discussion about the removal of the banner on the talk page (not necessarily in this review) is probably the only realistic starting point. Harrias ^talk 12:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Harrias. I'll wait until Saturday to see if the banner has been or can be removed. All the best. The drive looks to be going very well, btw. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Reading through the extensive above comments and reading the article, it seems to me that while there were (valid) NPOV complaints at one point, Hawkeye7 has made efforts to improve the article and respond to comments, and it has become far more neutral during the process from when the FAR started. I particularly note that the first sentence now mentions he was convicted of war crimes, the nicknames are removed from the lede, when the memoir is sourced it is usually mentioned, and new sources have been incorporated. I will also note that I haven't read the whole article through, but from skimming and reading sections, I get the impression of Kesselring as a generally talented soldier who did make mistakes and mess up. At the same time, he was undisputedly a war criminal, and I think the article now is as neutral as it needs to be. I should further note that I am not an expert on the topic, and there are undoubtedly complaints editors have that will not be resolved. However, Hawkeye and others have made great strides towards improving the article and I personally find that now the article is in sufficient status to remove the tag. It seems all involved editors hope to improve the article, but somewhere along the way they have begun talking in circles and are both frustrated with each other. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'll also add that the subject is evidently controversial (some edit disputes and the whole Nazi commander thing) – a finer comb may need to be run over neutrality because of that. Thanks for asking for more opinions, always good to check, and if you're comfortable continuing the review, the judgement on its current neutrality is for the reviewer :) Kingsif (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• It seems to me that there *were* NPOV concerns, which have largely been addressed. I concur with Kingsif that keeping the old POV tag is not now appropriate, and that all that is required is for the GA reviewer to consider the article as it is today and to judge whether it now passes the GA neutrality criterion. I think therefore that the tag should be removed and the reviewer permitted to continue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• I also believe that the NPOV issues have been addressed and the tag can be removed. If any editors disagree, let them identify the specific issues that concern them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• (Responding to ping. ETA: I see that I ended up missing the deadline by 24 minutes with respect to the main question, but I think that my points should be relevant regardless.)

FWIW, while the article was certainly much worse in the past than it is now, I think the current version still has major problems with neutrality. Some of these are structural: e.g. as a matter of WP:WEIGHT, I doubt the sources support using such a large fraction of the first paragraph for describing his military decorations. Many others have to do with presentation and emphasis: e.g. despite his war criminal status being included in the first sentence, it is presented as an afterthought, de-emphasized by the framing and use of the word "subsequently". Still others are related to how the source material is described: e.g. the second major example from my FAR comment, which still remains in the article. (In that case, the sentence was later edited to include another source, but according to the ES the reason was unrelated. While I don’t have access to the new source, if it addressed the issue then the sources would be contradicting each other, and the core issue still exists regardless - in fact, it was actually exacerbated by the edit, since the action was further de-emphasized by pushing it later in the sentence.)

It doesn’t look like there have been any significant edits to the article since the FAR was closed on 9 December, at which point the issues had not been resolved (by definition - otherwise it would have closed differently). Also, given the content of the discussion, I’m not sure how it’s possible to claim that the delisting didn’t involve neutrality issues. As such, I’m not really sure why it’s been renominated to GA. While it's true that the tag can be removed by default when there is no active discussion on the talk page, that also means that removal of the tag does not imply that the issues have been resolved. It’s also true that the important thing to consider is the status of the article in the present, but the content of previous discussions can still inform the evaluation. It’s possible that a GA review could fix the issues (emphasis on "possible"), but addressing everything would need a great deal of work, probably dozens of hours of detailed research. In addition, given the amount of opposition that was faced by the changes that already went through, I expect that the same would continue to occur. Sunrise (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Review

With the POV banner removed, I'm happy to commence a full review. I've ticked the article as stable and will mark other criteria as I go along. I'm already collating points that will need to be addressed and I'll present a full list of these later. Thank you to everyone who contributed to the discussion above. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Numerous points have arisen and I've listed them below on a section-by-section basis. Please see my overall comments at the end. Thanks.

Lead section

1. Change Kesselring became one of Nazi Germany's most skilful commanders, and one of the most highly decorated,... to Kesselring became one of Nazi Germany's most highly decorated commanders,... Given all the controversy about POV, I think expressions like "most skilful" should be avoided unless they are a direct quote from source.

Y Kesselring's reputation is very high. I could easily source such a claim. But removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

2. The link to Der Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten is misleading because that article is about the original Weimar ex-servicemen's league which was dissolved in 1935. Need some clarity on the group that Kesselring presided over: e.g., was it a phoenix group or something completely unrelated that happened to choose the same name? See also the comments below about this organisation.

Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

3. As a summary of the article, the lead is a good introduction.

Early life

1. 4th Royal Bavarian Division is piped to 2nd Bavarian Foot Artillery Regiment but there was a 2nd Bavarian Landwehr Division so is the linkage correct?

Y Yes, it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

2. The regiment was based at Metz and was responsible for maintaining its forts. He remained with the regiment until 1915, except for periods at the Military Academy from 1905 to 1906, at the conclusion of which he received his commission as a Leutnant (lieutenant), and at the School of Artillery and Engineering in Munich from 1909 to 1910. This entire piece of factual information is sourced to Kesselring's autobiography and there are a total of 27 references to that work. I don't believe the autobiography of a convicted war criminal can be regarded as a reliable source and this leaves me with a problem when I come to WP:GACR #2b. I note, incidentally, that the use of autobiographical information was an issue at the FA review. I would like to see independent sources cited for the information about Metz (unfortunately, Fortifications of Metz doesn't help) and Kesselring's career to 1910.

Being a convicted war criminal doesn't make you dishonest or unreliable. Substituted a reference to von Lingen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

World War I

1. In 1916 he was transferred again, to the 3rd Bavarian Foot Artillery. The link is to the 6th Royal Bavarian Division but piped to 3rd Bavarian Foot Artillery. As there was a 3rd Royal Bavarian Division, clarification is needed.

The piping is correct. No clarification is required. The 6th Royal Bavarian Division article clearly states that the 3rd Bavarian Foot Artillery was part of the division. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

2. General Staff is generic. Should be linked specifically to General Staff (Germany).

Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

3. His experience here informed his subsequent anti-communist political outlook. Use of "informed" here looks awkward and somewhat out of context: I think "shaped" would be a better word.

Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Between the wars

1. In the Reichswehr section, consolidated onto should be consolidated into.

Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

2. The Luftwaffe was not formally established until 26 February 1935. Suggest a link to Luftwaffe on its first use in the narrative.

Y Typo. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Inconsistent spelling of "divebomber". No hyphen in this section but two later uses are hyphenated.

Y Typo. Added a hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

4. Göring gave him command of Luftgau III (Air District III) in Dresden. According to this article, Luftgau III was Berlin. Dresden was Luftgau IV.

Luftgau III was in Dresden from 1935 to 1937. It moved to Berlin in 1938. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

5. German scientists succeeded in proving otherwise. The link to Battle of the Beams is fine but, for readability without having to use the link, the sentence should be completed with a mention of radio navigation.

Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

6. On 2 June the RLM relented... This is the only time this abbreviation is used and it should be attributed to the Reich Air Ministry (Reichsluftfahrtministerium) when that is introduced (line 2 of Luftwaffe section).

Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Poland

1. Need to introduce Alexander Löhr with a link.

Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Having made the comparison, say if Luftflotte 4 was also under von Bock's command or was it attached to von Rundstedt's Army Group South?

Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Does reference 32 cover the whole paragraph including the quoted remark by Kesselring, or just the last sentence? In fact, that sentence would be better without the remark because the location of the factories is immaterial.

Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

4. ...he contributed Fliegerdivision 1 to Battle of the Bzura. Insert "the".

Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Kesselring attempted to crush Polish resistance by making a series of air attacks against Warsaw in the final week of September, with the military campaign virtually over; Polish resistance was confined to the Hel Peninsula, Warsaw and Modlin. The comma and semi-colon are confusing the meaning. Amend to Kesselring attempted to crush Polish resistance by making a series of air attacks against Warsaw in the final week of September. With the military campaign virtually over, Polish resistance was confined to the Hel Peninsula, Warsaw and Modlin.

Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

6. 10 percent of the city's building. Plural.

Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

7. The bombing killed between 20,000 and 25,000 civilians, and may have killed as many as 40,000 people. Figures need to be clarified. Does it mean that between 15,000 and 20,000 military personnel may have been killed in addition to 25k civilians? Or, does it mean that the total death toll (all people) was probably much higher than the official 20k to 25k estimate?

Y Don't have that book, so deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

8. For his part in the Polish campaign, Kesselring was personally awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross by Hitler. Independent source needed to verify this.

Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

France and Low Countries

1. Move the first image from left to right. It disrupts presentation of the third paragraph. Moving it will not impact the lower image.

Y Moved it down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Not sure about the Wilhelm Speidel in this image: could he be Hans Speidel (although he wore spectacles)?

Y No, it is Wilhelm Speidel (General) alright. Hans was his younger brother.

3. ...advancing from Antwerp and interfering. Change to advancing from Antwerp to interfere.

Y Changed to "intervening". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

4. Change "near and in Paris" to "in and around" or "in and near".

Y Moved it down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

5. The abbreviation OKL has not been attributed. It is used twice in the article.

Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Britain

1. No need to specify that Brussels is in Belgium.

Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Netherlands is overlinked.

Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Initially responsible for the bombing of southeastern England and the London area, but as the battle progressed, command responsibility shifted, with Generalfeldmarschall Hugo Sperrle's Luftflotte 3 taking more responsibility for the night-time "blitz" attacks while Luftflotte 2 conducted the main daylight operations. The sentence needs to be copyedited. Try: Kesselring was initially responsible for the bombing of southeastern England and the London area but, as the battle progressed, command responsibility shifted and Generalfeldmarschall Hugo Sperrle's Luftflotte 3 took more responsibility for the night-time "blitz" attacks while Luftflotte 2 conducted the main daylight operations.

Y Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

4. London is overlinked.

Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Göring overruled them, he was sure... needs a conjunction: Göring overruled them because he was sure...

Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

6. Air superiority is overlinked (this might well be the case with similar terms throughout).

Y Did a sweep through the whole article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

7. Kesselring in particular, did not understand how the RAF fighter defences worked, and after the war, continued the naïve assumption Fighter Command could simply have been destroyed in dogfights. Poor use of commas. Syntax is becoming a problem throughout. Change to: Kesselring in particular did not understand how the RAF fighter defences worked and, after the war, continued the naïve assumption Fighter Command could simply have been destroyed in dogfights.

Y Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

8. The first phase of the battle–the Kanalkampf (Channel Battles) was marginally successful. Incorrect use of an endash. It needs two endashes or two commas.

Y Substituted an mdash. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

9. Instead, they fought their own private campaigns. Hardly "private" given that they were both accountable to Göring.

Y Changed to "separate" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

10. Furthermore, Fighter Command did not commit its reserve during the main attacks as the German command predicted–and popular histories contend. Does Alfred Price actually assert that popular histories contend the point or is this an OR opinion? I would remove it as it is in any event a trivial point. No one is interested in what "popular histories" might say unless it is both factual and relevant.

Y Probably, but agreed. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

11. Correct "dive- bombers".

Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

12. Correct "reoccurring".

Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Invasion of the Soviet Union

1. No need to hyphenate "airfield-construction". Contextually, it is two words.

Y De-hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Correct "percent" (two words).

Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Air supremacy overlinked already and there are two more instances here.

Y Did a pass over the whole article at the end. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

4. Does reference 102 account for everything in the paragraph to that point? I think another citation is needed for the first two sentences.

Y Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Kesselring's air fleet provided instrumental support in the battle of Bialystok–Minsk and Battle of Smolensk. Copyediting needed.

Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

6. A sudden transfer of his air power north to Luftflotte 1, decline in strength, bad weather and resurgence of the Red Air Force in his sector, led to the Kesselring–Bock combination's defeat at Yelna in September. Copyediting needed.

Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

7. ...but the attacks violated German doctrine, diverted from the army support sphere, and dissipated the concept of schwerpunkt (focus point). This looks as if it has just been copied verbatim from somewhere and it doesn't make sense without some attempt to explain what it all means. What, for example, was the German doctrine?

Y Probably the use of bombers on strategic targets. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

8. The bad weather that hampered ground operations from October on impeded air operations even more. The use of "on" is confusing. From October until when?

Y Changed to "in October" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

9. The penultimate paragraph of this section amplifies what I said earlier about inconsistent syntax. There are three sentences with similar openings: On 3 October, it claimed...; On 7 October 690 sorties were flown; and On 10 October 537 missions resulted.... The first one is syntactically correct, the other two are not.

Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

10. Correct "withrawal".

Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

11. Air supremacy again overlinked.

Y Did a pass over the whole article at the end. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

12. ...periods of close air Support along the Eastern Front. Decapitalise Support.

Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Mediterranean and North Africa

1. Only in January 1943 did he form his headquarters into... What was the reason for this delay? Should the sentence say: Only in January 1943 was he able to form his headquarters into...?

Y No, he was able to, but saw no reason to do so. As the article says: most German units were under Italian operational control. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. ...but this was of little importance at first as most German units were under Italian operational control. Is that correct?

Y Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3. There is a loss of narrative flow between the second and third paragraphs because the actual introduction to Malta is in the first two sentences of the third paragraph and therefore someone reading the second paragraph who does not know about Malta during the war will wonder how an island on a trade route is relevant to an article about a German general. The information in the second paragraph needs to be worked into the third paragraph and the whole piece then tidied up so that the reader sees a logical flow of events.

Y Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

4. Correct "desperate straights". It is "straits". You could say "dire straits".

Y Changed. Probably an error in the original; Williamson Murray is an American. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

5. The term "1st Free French Brigade" is not strictly correct because the 1st Free French was actually a division consisting of three independent brigades and the one at Bir Hakeim was the 1st Independent Free French Brigade (1e BFL), which was commanded by General Marie-Pierre Koenig.

Y The division was broken up but later reformed as 1re DMI. 1re BFL fought at Bir Hakeim. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

6. Kesselring was more impressed with the results of Rommel's capture of Tobruk on 21 June, for which Kesselring brought in additional aircraft from Greece and Crete. Independent source needed for this.

Y Added, but not needed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Tunisia

1. The delay endied any prospect... Spelling.

Y Typo. Corrected.

Sicily

1. Replace reference 158 with independent sources.

Y Kesselring's thoughts require his own account. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Replace reference 160 with an independent source for the U-boat information.

Y Kesselring's thoughts require his own account. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Third paragraph needs independent sources to replace reference 164. Does Citino help?

Y No, but I can replace all but the bit about Luftwaffe doctrine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Allied invasion of Italy

1. The image in this section is labelled: "A German PAK near Salerno". PAK needs to be defined as an anti-tank weapon. Can this one be identified as, for example, a 7.5 cm Pak 40?

Y Don't want to try identifying from an image. Replaced PaK with "anti-tank gun". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. I Parachute Corps is a redlink. Unless it is likely to become an article fairly soon, remove the link.

No. See WP:REDLINK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

3. The last sentence of the first paragraph should be removed unless there is an independent source.

Y It says "claimed in his memoirs" I think that is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

4. The last two sentences need an independent source (reference 184).

Y It says "claimed in his memoirs" I think that is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Salerno

1. Remove first sentence unless it can be independently sourced.

Y In the next sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Is the last sentence of the first paragraph correct? Does the cited source actually credit Kesselring with misleading Eisenhower?

Y No, the cited source (and the article) clearly says that it was entirely inadvertent. Not for the first or the last time, Eisenhower was misled by being able to read the German codes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Re-link Allied invasion of Italy to Operation Avalanche (beginning of second paragraph).

Y Re-linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

4. The Apennine Mountains ran down the centre of the Italian Peninsula, and therefore the rivers and gorges radiated down to the sea on both coasts. They still do so convert this sentence to present tense.

Y Re-tensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Correct "...and allowed the them to conduct..."

Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

6. Change Allied artillery was reduced in effectiveness due to the poor observation of well-concealed German positions to Allied artillery was reduced in effectiveness due to poor reconnaisance of well-concealed German positions.

Y "Observation" is the correct military term. Linked to Artillery observer.

7. This was the narrowest part of the Peninsula. Decapitalise.

Y De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

8. Change This was the narrowest part of the Peninsula, and could be held with the fewest German and Italian troops.[194] Kesselring estimated that his positions could be held with just eleven divisions, with a couple of mobile divisions in reserve... to This was the narrowest part of the peninsula, and could be held with just eleven divisions, with a couple of mobile divisions in reserve... Repetitive as is.

Y Trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

9. Remove last sentence of fourth paragraph.

No reason given. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

10. Provide some context for that lengthy quotation by Hitler at the end of the fifth paragraph. When, where and to whom did he say all that?

Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

11. Hitler ordered Rommel and his Army Group B headquarters to move to France to take charge of the Atlantic Wall and prepare for the Allied attack that was expected there in the spring of 1944. This statement needs to be reconsidered because Rommel was appointed in early 1944 and the Germans had no real expectation of when D-Day might be, so to specify the spring of 1944 is speculative.

As the source (and the article) says, it was expected in the spring of 1944. This was a reasonable and accurate estimation given the English Channel weather. In fact, D-Day was delayed until June by a shortage of landing ships. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassino and Anzio

1. Two instances of reference 204 need to be replaced by independent sources, especially the second point about Canaris.

Replaced one. The other says in his memoirs. What is unusual is that Kesselring admits to being out-generalled and beaten. While the historians point the finger at Canaris for poor intelligence, Kesselring did not blame him. It is truly unusual for a general to do this; most blame external factors for defeat, generally external ones like the weather. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Independent source needed to replace reference 207.

Y It says "in his memoirs". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Lieutenant General overlinked. Throughout, check all links to military ranks.

Y All duplicate links removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

4. Mark W. Clark, commander of the U.S. Fifth Army, obsessed with the capture of Rome, failed to take advantage of the situation. Need a citation at the end of this sentence given the opinion it contains about Clark. Presumably 218 will suffice?

Y Already there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Need an independent source for Kesselring being tipped off by Göring.

Y He was not "tipped off"; he was informed by his superior. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Actions affecting population and cultural objects

1. Consistency needed re "booby trapped" and "booby-trapping". Use the hyphen in both.

Y Hyphen removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Amend "a superb observing point over the battlefield". Try "viewpoint" or "observation post".

Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

War crimes

1. Subsequently, massacres were carried out by the Hermann Göring Panzer Division at Stia in April, Civitella in Val di Chiana in June and Bucine in July 1944. Sentence needs to be re-cited as reference 248 no longer exists.

Y Works for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Eitel Friedrich Möllhausen is a redlink needing attention.

No reason given. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Reiner Stahel. Use correct name here, not the redirect.

Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

4. Amend spelling of "labor" (twice) as British spellings have prevailed thus far in the article (harbour, armour, etc.).

Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

5. The first paragraph is written in a convoluted way with little regard for syntax and narrative flow. Too much has been crammed into individual sentences. Needs to be rewritten with better source attribution (e.g., the background stuff on Kappler needs a specific source).

The article is fully sourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

6. On 9 October Möllhausen was advised by Ribbentrop, that the Roman Jews were to be deported on the basis of Hitler's instructions and that he had not to interfere in any way. This is poor English and must be rewritten. On 9 October, Möllhausen was informed by Ribbentrop that the Roman Jews were to be deported on Hitler's orders and that he must not in any way interfere.

Y Rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

7. Two days later, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the head of instructed Kappler to fulfill the orders regardless of difficulties or repercussions. Head of what?

Y The SD. Trimmed this whole section bacvk to focus on Kesselring. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

8. On 16 October 1,259 Jews were rounded up in Rome. On 18 October 1,007 of them were sent to Auschwitz concentration camp. Syntax: insert a comma after each date to properly introduce the main clause.

9. Some, 6,806 Jews were arrested. And here in the same paragraph is a rogue comma.

Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Central Europe

1. The title of this section is misleading because the content is about operations in Germany after the Rhine crossing. Change title to "Germany: March – May 1945". Central Europe is broadly understood to be the area between Germany and Russia.

Central Europe is the area between the Rhine and the Vistula, and is the official US name of the campaign. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Replace reference 258 with an independent source. The information is certainly correct but a reliable source should be cited.

Y The other source will do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Given the desperate situation of the Western Front, this was another sign of Kesselring's proverbial optimism. Kesselring still described Hitler's analysis of the situation as "lucid", according to which the Germans were about to inflict a historical defeat upon the Soviets, after which the victorious German armies would be brought west to crush the Allies and sweep them from the continent. Therefore, Kesselring was determined to "hang on" in the west until the "decision in the East" came. Entire piece needs to be re-cited as reference 260 no longer exists.

Y Link updated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

4. Replace both instances of reference 262 with independent sources.

Y It says "claimed in his memoirs" I think that is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Replace reference 267 with an independent source.

Y Replaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Chaotic surrender

1. He testified at the Nuremberg trial of Göring, but his offers to testify against Soviet, American, and British commanders were declined. Sentence needs to be re-cited as reference 248 no longer exists.

Y Source is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Qualify OSS, which occurs only once in the article.

Y Not true; it is used earlier. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Remove sentence sourced to reference 269 unless there is an independent source.

Y No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

4. Apart from one short sentence, the whole of the penultimate paragraph is sourced to Kesselring. There is a considerable amount of information here that must be available in reliable sources.

Y Kesselring is a reliable source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Replace reference 274 with an independent source.

Y Deleted sentence. Wish we could use this Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Trial

1. Kesselring was arraigned on two charges: the shooting of 335 Italians in the Ardeatine massacre, and incitement to kill Italian civilians. Sentence needs to be re-cited as reference 286 no longer exists.

Y Source is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Although the court accepted the legality of the taking of hostages, it left open the question of the legality of killing innocent persons in reprisals; the distinction between the two would later be clarified in the High Command Trial. Remove reference 286 which no longer exists; 289 will suffice.

Y Source is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3. No introduction or linkage to Kurt Mälzer, who is mentioned five times throughout.

Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

4. The first trial, held in Rome, was of Mackensen and Mälzer. Mackensen was called von Mackensen and that is the form used elsewhere in this article.

Y Added "von". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Willy Tensfeld is a redlink so remove linkage unless an article will soon be created.

Y No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Commutation and release from prison

1. Replace reference 306 with an independent source.

Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Capitalise "German high command".

Y No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Manstein → von Manstein.

Y Added "von". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Later life

1. Kesselring's memoirs were published in 1953, as Soldat bis zum letzten Tag (A Soldier to the Last Day). The English edition was published a year later as A Soldier's Record. Kesselring's contentions that the Luftwaffe was not defeated in the air in the Battle of Britain and that Operation Sea Lion—the invasion of Britain—was thought about, but never seriously planned, were controversial. Entire piece needs to be re-cited as reference 260 no longer exists.

Y Source is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. The entire paragraph which begins Kesselring protested what he regarded..., including five quotations, needs to be re-cited as reference 260 no longer exists.

Y Source is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Change "in the hospital" to "in hospital".

Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

4. As already noted among the lead comments, qualification is needed of Der Stahlhelm because it was not the original organisation as implied by the link in the lead. It says here that it was a "right-wing veterans' association", presumably created after WWII.

Y Already unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Citation needed immediately after the "normal military operation" quote. That is a controversial statement which should be cited directly, not at the end of a lengthy paragraph.

Y Not in the source, so deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

6. Citation needed immediately after the "unjustly smirched reputation of the German soldier" quote. See also point 2 above re this paragraph.

Y Very well. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

7. Change "in a sanatorium in Bad Nauheim in West Germany" to "in a sanatorium at Bad Nauheim in West Germany".

Y Hmmm Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Baton

No comments.

Footnotes

All useful and all verified.

Notes

1. There is inconsistency in referencing format with some book titles not being italicised: e.g., nos 45, 94, 236, etc.

Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

2. Another inconsistency is in several failures to use a comma after the author's name: e.g., nos 22, 100, 108, 115, 117, 120, 123, 124, etc.

Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3. Reference 248 doesn't exist and it has been used for two citations (see above).

Y Source is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

4. Reference 260 doesn't exist and it has been used for three citations (see above).

Y Source is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Reference 286 doesn't exist and it has been used for two citations (see above).

Y Source is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

References

1. A wide-ranging selection with ample ISBN and OCLC identifiers. Very well presented.

Images

1. The photos are mostly from the German Federal Archives by agreement and others are public domain or carry appropriate permission to use so there seem to be no copyvio issues.

2. The images are all relevant but some of the captions need minor attention as discussed above. Caption syntax is inconsistent, however – all sentences should end with a full stop.

3. Imagery overall is appropriate and useful.

General points

1. There are 55 examples of full stop outside closing quote mark and ten examples of the opposite. While the latter is (technically, in GB English) incorrect, the problem is inconsistency.

Y No problem here. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

As this article is a former FA, it may have been thought that it would qualify for GA by default but that is not the case as shown by the number and range of the points raised above. The article became a GA and then an FA back in 2009 and I can only assume that reviewing standards then were considerably lower than they are now. I have read last year's FAR and must express agreement with its outcome although that discussion focused on areas that are mostly outside the scope of a GA review.

The use of Kesselring's autobiography creates a reliability problem but the biggest issue for me as a GA reviewer is the lack of due diligence in preparation for this review. There are far too many errors of grammar, linkage, spelling and syntax. There are too many instances of technical terms used without qualification as if all readers can take them for granted (for example, while I know what a PAK was, I bet most readers don't). Several points relate to a careless use of linkage such as failure to use a link when needed or, even worse, creating confusion between the text and the linked article.

Apart from the autobiography, the sources used appear to be reliable but the impression gained of the article is that a huge number of factual statements have been gathered from those sources and then arranged moreorless chronologically within each section but without any establishment of a narrative flow. The basic structure of the article is good, however, as its sections and sub-sections are appropriate and it complies with the layout style guidelines. Reading the article, you seem to jump from fact to fact as if much of the content is a list without bullet points. In some places, as with Malta, you have to re-read a paragraph three or four times to get a grasp of what is being discussed. One of the key conditions of WP:GACR #1 is understandable to an appropriately broad audience and this article is a long way from achieving that.

The article has a readable prose size of 90 kB (14,598 words) and, strictly speaking, that doesn't breach WP:SIZERULE. Even so, given the complexity of the article and the problems posed by the issues raised above, its readability is poor. I am, I think, well versed in the military, political and social histories of WWII and so an article about a famous general holds no fears for me, especially as I'm familiar with most of the technical terminology of the time. I have to say, though, that reading this article has been difficult, certainly not enjoyable, and one of the main reasons for that difficulty is the length. I therefore recommend that the article is reduced in size by the creation of three sub-articles to split coverage of Kesselring's WWII career: 1939 to 1941; Mediterranean and North Africa; and Italy. Another possibility is a sub-article about Kesselring's trial and imprisonment. The rest can remain in this article with short overviews leading to the new ones.

Result

The article fails GACR #1a. While the prose for the most part is satisfactory, it does not meet the needs of a broad audience who would struggle with technicalities and length. In addition, there are too many grammar, linkage, spelling and syntax issues.

Passes GACR #1b as the lead is fine apart from a couple of points easily addressed, the layout is good and there are no problems with the other conditions.

Passes GACR #2a, #2c and #2d without problem but fails #2b because of controversial statements from an unreliable source which is used many times throughout; the use of that source has led to many statements requiring citation from a reliable source.

Passes GACR #3a in that it is within scope but fails #3b because of the WP:LENGTH issue.

You already admitted that this is not an issue, as the article doesn't breach WP:SIZERULE. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There was controversy before the review about the POV banner but my only complaint on that score is the use of Kesselring's autobiography, although I think that is primarily an issue for GACR #2b, not #4. There are only minor POV issues and those have been raised above. I think, on balance, that the article passes both GACR #4 & #5 despite the earlier concerns. The imagery is good and it passes GACR #6.

I am failing this review because I cannot justify placing it on hold again. There is far too much to be done to improve the article sufficiently ahead of a fresh review in seven days. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)