Talk:Werner Mölders

Mölders was not general

Mölders's last rank was Oberst, not General. This is a very usual mistake, because Mölders's last post was General der Jagdflieger -- but it was a post, not rank. I've edited the article accordingly. - Mikko H. 10:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

The article says " 3rd squadron of J-88 Group". I have no idea what that refers to. III./JG88? 3./JG88? Something else? Can somebody who knows Mölders' career clarify? Trekphiler 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarified it a bit - it refers to the 3. squadron of a 4 squadron Jagdgruppe. Abel29a 19:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Leutnant Rank

The article had been altered to include the use of the word "Lieutenant", that is not the correct rank for a German Luftwaffe Officer. The rank is equivalent to the modern US Airforce Rank of Second Lietentant, but is spelt and pronounced "Leutnant".

To Emphaside this I have altered the link and spelling, so as to go to the German Army Rank listing (which is the same as the Luftwaffe listing), and corrected the spelling.

I have also made the link for Major also point to the same German Rank reference. Though the spelling in that case is the same.

- Xelous - 13th June 2007.

German terminology and copy edits

More terminology needs to be translated. Forex, Staffel and Jagdgruppe. What unit is this II./Infanterie-Regiment ? There should be a regimental number. This needs to be copy edited as there are numerous problems with the text. And what is the WP:MOS guidance on possessives when the name ends in s? Many instances of no possessive when Molders owned or did something. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

tweaks/copy edits for the FA process

lead

• it's long, almost as long as the article it seems, and maybe too detailed....?
• was he banned from combat for propaganda reasons like Richthofen? if not, change my tweak.
• how many others were killed in the crash at Breslau?

early life comments and questions

• Fahnenjunker-Gefreiter' this and the next ranks need some kind of explanation, either inline or as a note.
• why was he unfit for flying -- m*otion sickness?

I've made a bunch of tweaks and smoothed out some text, fixed some colloquialisms.

More later. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lead--radically shortened -- we don't need to double iterate his medals and awards, since you go into them in depth during the text. I've made the changes with the <-- > markup, so it is very easy to reverse, even if other changes happen over them. Take a look. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• what is a park position? do you mean staff position?

  yes and no. Göring ordered him not to fly operationally anymore. So until he had decided what to do with him. Meaning what position could he hold? They/Göring “parked” him in a staff position until a new position with meaningful contribution was found. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• This needs expansion: "Mölders was a devoutly religious individual who demanded that all Allied aviators captured by those under his command be treated civilly, and often would invite captured pilots to dine with him.[53]"

what else can we say about this?

• Comments okay, the text is "better" but not perfect. The refs posed some problems for me, and I hope I haven't done too much damage. I incorporated the "notes" into the text where possible, and I think it makes it easier reading. I'll figure out another way to explain "parked" -- I need to consult a friend who is a military person. Please review and let me know what else you need here (such as when the FA folks get going on it). Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  Great job! I restored the citations. MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  I changed the "park position" to a "stopgap position" yesterday – not great either, but it conveys the meaning. Perhaps we should say something like "as an interim solution". Dunno; if your friend can come up a with a terminus technicus for this sort of appointment, all the better. JN466 23:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  "Übung Rügen" -- I propose we say "Operation Rügen", per BBC et al. And can we drop "(en: Practice contest)"? JN466 00:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  yes MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

looks good. Rügen does not translate well. WEnt through the text again, tweaked the last bit, moved a couple of things, removed some of the extrania in the intro that I had cloaked, and it's really unnecessary. Parked = stopgap = temporary (or interim would work too). For all the similarities, German and English languages often don't cooperate very well. There were still some "Germanisms" but I think they are mostly gone. Unfortunately, I've been reading a lot of German recently, so I don't always see them either. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't really translate Rügen – it's the island here (rather than the word meaning "telling off"). ;) --JN466 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

another idea

how about summarizing his units in the text, and focusing on his aerial victories, rather than every unit he served in, moved here on whenever, and there on whenever. Add a separate section on units, just a list or a table. That would shift the focus to his notability, rather than on the units he was with. Even with the English version (and the German in parens), the focus is on what unit he was in (because of the sheer volume of text), rather than what he did in that unit. ?? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I don't think it would work. Looking at the text, some paragraphs would be pretty much gutted if we did that, and where he was and what job he did are among the basic facts his bio should describe. JN466 16:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

it would gut some of the paragraphs, but if that is the case, then perhaps those paragraphs have little in them except the unit names. It doesn't mean taking out the units entirely, but focussing on his activities, rather than he was transferred here and then there, and then somewhere else, and while here there and somewhere else, he got this many kills, that many kills, etc. As I read it again, it seems very heavy on these kinds of details, one darn thing after another, and loses the story of his life. Just an observation. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

While I merit the idea I fear that this will not work. On every other article I've done, I received the feedback to integrate information into the flow of the text. I think the reviewers would disapprove here too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

New paragraph in Legacy and other tweaks

The new paragraph in legacy is very good info. I've fixed some obvious Germanisms (hope that's okay). I also added a few other translations and took out 2 redundancies elsewhere Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done. I overlooked a couple. JN466 01:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Guernica

English-language source commenting on Mölders' falling out of favour in 2005: [1]; this mentions that he was posted to Spain well after Guernica. I've updated that part of the article accordingly, there wasn't doubt as to whether he'd participated, he wasn't even there. The bombing of Guernica was on April 26, 1937; Mölders went to Spain in April 1938. JN466 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

good catch. I've tried to clarify that bit at the end. The German bureaucratic names make it hard for English speaking readers to follow (even if they know German), and I think this works better. What do you think? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Heading titles

A few of the heading titles in this article seem to be improperly capitalized. According to the Manual of Style, "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case." Thus, the following may need to be changed:

• Eastern Front → Eastern front
• High Command → High command
• Reversal of Honors: Report by... → Reversal of honors: report by...

Usually I do this myself, but since this is a featured article and has presumably been copy-edited a lot already, I thought I'd ask here first to avoid accidentally de-capitalizing any proper nouns. Note that if the "Eastern Front" header is in fact correct (as it seems to be based on its article), instances of "Eastern front" in the text should be corrected instead. tktktk 07:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I went ahead and made the changes. Feel free to revert any of it if there is good reason to do so. —tktktk 01:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I think Eastern Front (q.v.) may be better with the capitals, but this would then have to be done consistently throughout the article. --JN466 14:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Honours

If this was the recipient of a British or Commonwealth award, one would expect to see the initials VC, MC, DSO or whatever after his name. Surely that should also be the case here. Amandajm (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism -protection needed?

This page will receive many visits today and there have already been nefarious edits - if someone could put some sort of anti vandalism measure on this page I'm sure it will stop a lot of grief and save a lot of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.24.152 (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC) -- Ongoing /b/ raid target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.247.50 (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just got vandaled again. This page needs protection. Oh, and the vandalism was addition of a section titled "wIKIPEDIA is evil".Starbox (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Grave on Invalidenfriedhof

There seems to be a misunderstanding in the article concerning the reason why Mölders' grave was levelled in 1975. The Invalidenfriedhof was not just located somewhere in East Berlin, but at the border to West Berlin. As border fortifications expanded over time, Mölders' grave came to lay within the "death strip" of the Berlin Wall. The order by East German officals to level graves on Invalidenfriedhof was restricted to graves in the "death strip"; so not all graves on the cemetery were affected. In other words: It was not a political step directed against a Wehrmacht officer (or against German militarism in general), but a border security measure.

Another point (just for general interest): As the article correctly shows, the rebuilt grave with a heavy marbled grey stone slab (as chosen by Mölders' family) looks completely different than the originally plain grave marker. Since Mölders' grave was the first to be rebuilt in the devasted parts of the cemetery, this sparked a controversy among conservators as to how preservation and reconstruction of this historic site could be reconciled with the preferences of the families of the dead. There was also some anxiety that too lavishly decorated reconstructed graves could attract Neo-Nazis. This lead to a resolution that lost graves on Invalidenfriedhof should only be marked with small standardized restitution stones. Exceptions are made if the original outlook of the grave is known and reconstruction is possible and desirable. This is the reason why Mölders' grave remains the only one on Invalidenfriedhof with a "contemporary" appearance. --Beek100 (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting, Beek. Do you have a source on this so it could be added to the article? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the relevant passages in the Invalidenfriedhof article on German Wikipedia, so I can refer you to my sources there. The titles are: Laurenz Demps: Zwischen Mars und Minerva. Wegweiser über den Invalidenfriedhof. Ein Verzeichnis der auf dem Invalidenfriedhof zu Berlin noch vorhandenen Grabdenkmale. Verlag für Bauwesen, Berlin 1998, ISBN 3-345-00659-6. Klaus von Krosigk (Ed.): Der Invalidenfriedhof. Rettung eines Nationaldenkmals. L-und-H-Verl., Hamburg 2003, ISBN 3-928119-83-4.

Reference for location of grave and reason for levelling: Demps, p. 167-168, 170-171; von Krosigk, p. 54-55.

Reference for objection to the appearance of the restituted Mölders grave and the subsequent implemention of restrictions on restitutions on Invalidenfriedhof: von Krosigk, p. 5-6, 20-23, 55.

The source mentions concerns about "nationalists" and "right-wing extremists" trying to use the Invalidenfriedhof als rallying point. This would usually be translated with "Neo-Nazis" into English, although that is imprecise. The concerns were not limited to the Mölders grave but related to other graves as well. The decision to restrict restitution was made by the "Talking Circle Invalidenfriedhof" ("Gesprächskreis Invalidenfriedhof") consisting of city officals, preservation experts and family members.

Another detail (no reference, just my own observation): This photo (which I took in June 2008) shows the proximity of the graves of Mölders, Udet and Wolff von Stutterheim. Compare with this photo, which I took several months earlier. It shows that von Stutterheim's grave has only recently been relocated to its original site. The interesting part is that East German officals had levelled the graves of Mölders and Udet whereas von Stutterheim's grave was actually transferred to another part of the cemetery around 1975. My best guess is that the officials considered von Stutterheim less compromised by Nazi affiliations and therefore raised no objection to a relocation of the grave. Both photos show that all three graves were located between the "rear wall" of the Berlin Wall (remnants seen on the left) and the "patrol road" of the border guards (seen on the right), placing them in the death strip. --Beek100 (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The editor who wrote this article is very diligent, so I hope he'll check these out. Have you seen the article in the English wiki about the Inner German Border...? You might find it interesting. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is very interesting information indeed. I will read the respective passage and maybe even buy one of the books mentioned. I suggest adding a small paragraph detailing the background and reasoning. I will post a suggestion here before adding to the article. Thanks for pointing this out. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The more relevant title here is von Krosigk (he is Berlin's leading conservator for "garden monuments"). Demps' book is a book-long guide with short biographies of the dead and an abbreviated version of his historical study on Invalidenfriedhof (Laurenz Demps: Der Invalidenfriedhof. Ein Denkmal preußisch-deutscher Geschichte in Berlin. Brandenburgisches Verlags-Haus, Berlin 1996, ISBN 3-89488-093-7). --Beek100 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why was he banned from flying?

The reasons for grounding the most succesful fighter pilot ever should be very clear. The article mentions "propaganda" reasons in the lead-in which are not mentioned again. The body paragraph where the banning is mentioned suggests that it might have been part of his promotion to Oberst. What's the story? --Atkinson (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding that it was a directive, either from Hitler or Goering, on the rationale that it would be poor propaganda if The leading air ace of the Third Reich was shot down. Same reasoning as changing the name of the pocket-battleship Deutschland to Lutzow. I will hunt out references and come back here. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

At issue would chiefly have been the propaganda coup obtained by the enemy should such a famous personage be killed or captured. Hitler wasn't the only one to do this. Roosevelt's order for Gen. MacArthur to evacuate Bataan was based by the same calculation, since his capture would have made him the highest-ranking POW in Japanese hands. In any case, as one progresses through the ranks, an officer's value (and responsibility) becomes less that of doing the actual shooting and more one of command. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Article glorifies fascist soldier

Why does this article read as though the various military actions this fascist fuck did were glorious? The rebels in Spain didn't exactly have an airforce, so besides Guernica, why did Franco employ nationalist, German, air fighters? Altontacoma (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do any US fighter pilots have pages? Should we judge history relative to who won, or should we recall, learn about, and organize history so that we can apply it to the present? Oh wait, I forgot, you're an American, you don't learn history. 69.121.24.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC).

Nice... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.247.37 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice? One paints all Germans as fascist and the other paints all Americans as ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NevarMaor (talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you assume that I think pages on US pilots are good? US servicemen have committed atrocities too, and I would hope that the relevant articles reflect them. Does "organizing history so we can apply it" mean that we should leave out the massive civilian deaths done by the German airmen in the Spanish civil war? And another thing, where did you get that I think all Germans are fascist? Quit reading into what people write. Altontacoma (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You have not elaborated on what specifically you find objectionable in the article. Is it the phrasing about Mölders' "exceptional performance as a commander and fighter pilot"? Please explain. By the way, you should not get too plaintive about people's reactions when you start a discussion with a "fascist fuck" formulation clearly intended to provoke. --Beek100 (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I find your assessment of Mölders character a little too one-dimensional. Interesting is that your conclusion after reading the article (I assume you read it) reduces him to a fascist fuck. To some degree I can follow this reasoning. By nature German soldiers who had fought for the Third Reich must be fascists and evil to some degree or other. This seems to be a common misconception, especially in Germany today. Clearly Mölders had talents that were much needed by the officials of Nazi Germany. I would probably even go as far as to say that he prospered in this environment. However, he did show character traits that many others did not have, stepping up for those close to him. Unfortunately fate denied us to find out how far his opposition and resistance would have taken him. All said I am always open for suggestions on how to improve the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Quoting 69.121.24.191: Why do any US fighter pilots have pages? Should we judge history relative to who won, or should we recall, learn about, and organize history so that we can apply it to the present? Oh wait, I forgot, you're an American, you don't learn history. In answer to that: Sooooooo you're saying that just because we won, that means our pilots can't have pages?

Nice Work

Nice article, worthy of this soldier's soldier.--Murat (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)