Talk:Comparative officer ranks of World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Articles for deletion


This article was nominated for deletion on January 11, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

British Commonwealth[edit]

I'd like to clarify a few things:

  1. The Commonwealth of Nations did not exist during WWII
  2. United Kingdom on it's own does not include the colonies
  3. Most history books say either: Britain supported by the Commonweath (ie the colonies) or use the term British Empire (ie UK + Colonies)

So now, I have a few questions:

  • What is Grant65 trying to do?
  • Why is he linking the British forces to an international organisation that did not exist during WWII?
  • What is wrong with British Empire? Latinus 17:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It's never really been an "international organisation". But anyway, see the discussion above, under "A Proposal". Also read the Commonwealth of Nations article and you will see that the name was changed from British Empire to British Commonwealth in 1926, followed by Commonwealth of Nations in 1949. Grant65 | Talk 02:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact remains that the name used during WWII was almost exclusively the British Empire and the troops were described as Imperial Forces. -- Necrothesp 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That may be true for the British government and the British media. Nevertheless, "British Commonwealth" was the correct name, it was used before and during WW2, and it also more accurately conveys the quite different state of affairs that existed in 1939-45, to those in previous wars, largely as a result of the Statute of Westminster 1931. For example, in 1914 the UK declared war on behalf of the whole Empire. Whereas, in 1939 the Dominions declared war independently of the UK (or, in the case of Eire, which was also a Dominion at the time, they did not).
Besides anything else, in WW2 there were, in practical terms, no overarching Empire/Commonwealth military/political institutions, as opposed to Allied institutions like the Combined Chiefs of Staff. The Dominion governments did what they thought best for their own countries, and "British Empire" also tends to give an incorrect impression in this respect. As an Australian I'm probably biased, but I think the general lack of awareness of this state of affairs — the Dominions as independent actors in 1939-45 — is something that we should be trying to correct. Grant65 | Talk 17:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I've read a great deal on the history of the Empire/Commonwealth and can see no evidence of any exclusion of India and the other crown colonies from the "British Commonwealth" in 1926-49. And I've never seen a reference to the "Dominions and Empire" or similar phrases in 1926-49.
If you want examples of usage of "British Commonwealth" in 1939-45, there was the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan and the proposed joint army corps for the invasion of Japan was the Commonwealth Corps. It may well have included an Indian Army division.
And if the name of the column is not changed back to British Commonwealth in the next 24 hours, I'll ask to have the page protected again.Grant65 | Talk 18:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I detect an element of original research here - you told me that the name was officially changed to British Commonwealth; can you provide a source (the article you pointed to did not say exactly what you indicated - it merely said that the Empire was dismantled after WWII)? Also, the typical solution in such circumstances is a Google test, which when applied in this case reveals the following:
  • 1,060,000 hits for "British Commonwealth"[1]
  • 3,510,000 hits for "British Empire" [2]
According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), the most common name is to be used - in this case, the most common name is "British Empire". Why should the more obscure term be used (which I have yet to see in a textbook). Latinus 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This is getting bizarre. By your logic there is no Commonwealth now, it is still called the British Empire. How on earth could a Google search tell us anything about the official name in 1926-49? That is the issue. Since you clearly have not read Commonwealth of Nations, the summary box states: "Established informally as "British" Commonwealth in 1926, the modern Commonwealth began in 1949." The fuller description of the changing name reads:
In 1884, whilst visiting Adelaide, South Australia, Lord Rosebery described the changing British Empire, as its former colonies became more independent, as a "Commonwealth of Nations". The formal organisation of the Commonwealth has its origins in the Imperial Conferences of the late 1920s ... where the independence of the self-governing colonies and especially of Dominions was recognized, particularly in the Balfour Declaration at the Imperial Conference in 1926, when the United Kingdom and its dominions agreed they were "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations". This relationship was eventually formalised by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. ... The word "British" was dropped in 1946 from the title of the Commonwealth to reflect the changing position."
In other words it was officially renamed Commonwealth of Nations in 1946 and the loose association we now know informally as "the Commonwealth" began in 1949.
Clearly the term "British Empire" is technically incorrect and it fails to capture the massive change in the political relationship between Britain and the Dominions which occurred in 1931. Grant65 | Talk 01:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
To cite an analogous situation: "America" has always been more commonly used than "United States", but we don't use "America" because it's not the official name and some people object to it. Grant65 | Talk 11:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And if Necrothesp wants evidence that the term British Commonwealth was applied to non-Dominion countries in 1926-49, see the text of the Balfour Declaration of 1926: "We would, nevertheless, recall that by Resolution IX of the Imperial War Conference, 1917, due recognition was given to the important position held by India in the British Commonwealth."[3] Grant65 | Talk 11:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was still the British Commonwealth for the entire duration of the World War II (and until 1946 or 1949 depending how you count it). But please don't redirect link via British Commonwealth. Please direct link to the Commomonwealth of Nations article like this: [[Commonwealth of Nations|British Commonwealth]]. Hu 02:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lots of misunderstanding on BOTH SIDES. There was clearly the British Empire AND Commonwealth at the time, the latter just referring to the Dominiions or "old commonwealth" (read the wikipedia article!). India, for example, while in the British Empire would not have been referred to as a commonwealth country. Having said that, the ranks we are dealing with ranks of "the commonwealth" as understood at the time and if and we would get into problems including all of the empire as many different rank titles were used particularly in the non-officer ranks (alhthough not listed currently someone might add them in the future). Dainamo 13:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"There was clearly the British Empire AND Commonwealth at the time, the latter just referring to the Dominiions or "old commonwealth" " No, this is not correct. Before this disappears into the archives, I repeat: while the term "British Empire" may have been more widely used than "British Commonwealth" in 1939-45, the latter was the technically correct name, as it was changed in 1926. While "British Commonwealth" doesn't seem to have caught on, and was changed to "Commonwealth of Nations" in 1949. Nevertheless, "British Commonwealth" did apply to both Dominions and Crown Colonies (including India) in 1939-45. Grant65 | Talk 14:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Greece and poland were not ranks of WW2.Greece were occupied by axis powers.So we should show yugoslavia,albania,czechoslovakia,...This table should be changed (or i will change it).


This not say about this countries resistance forces not have them ranks!

Greece didnt fight.Slavs fighted against germans.Yugoslavia is OK but greece isnt.

Greece fought. See Greco-Italian War and Battle of Crete -- 18:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Is this article ready for unprotection yet? It's been fully protected for six days now. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This version provided by Nixer appears to be a good compromise. I think we can risk unprotection. To Nixer's credit, he was not the architect of the edit war that occurred, and that other user has not made a reapperance since protection. I say go for unprotection and see how things go. -Husnock 22:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
OK the article is now unprotected. Have at it. howcheng {chat} 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
As I was not involoved with the addition of the Greek or Poland ranks, I feel as an admin I can fairly intervene in this "new" edit war that has emerged. I will say for the record that the new users and anon ip addresses, who now seem to be reverting with the same ferocity as User:Tt1 appear to be all the same user with the same style and knowledge of the English language. If these edit wars continue, this article should again be protected. -Husnock 22:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't it be semi-protected, so that only users with accounts for more than four days can edit (IPs can't). It'd be a shame to block everyone from editing. Latinus 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected. A blocked user under Three Revert Rule was logging back on under anon IP addresses to circumvent the block and place disputed edits back into the article. -Husnock 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
And now we have User:Roitr adding the same rubbish again (I noticed a merchant marine flag of Poland and the ranks invented in 1954 are back to the list, which makes me think that the guy is yet another version of Tt1.. Halibutt 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Roitr is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Tt1 who is, in turn the puppetmaster of the previously blocked user User:Alexr23. Those three identities can easily be said to be the same user. Based on the constant edit warring, the persistent insertion of highly disputed and unsoruced material, as well as the total disregard for Wikipedia policy (i.e. use of sockpuppets to circumvent blocks), edits made by this user (and his/her many identities and incarnations) are to be viewed (at least by this admin) as nothing more than vandalism and will be reverted on site. -Husnock 00:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Admiral of the Navy (US)[edit]

I see that this rank has been removed twice from the table. If we are going to have the rank of General of the Armies, we need to have Admiral of the Navy. United States Navy tradition holds that Admiral of the Navy is a six star rank equivlanet senior to that of Fleet Admiral. This was declared in 1944 that George Dewey was senior to U.S. Fleet Admirals. It was again declared when Chester Nimitz was considered for promotion to 6 star rank in 1945. This is also taught to all Midshipman that Admiral of the Navy is the senior most naval rank of the entire United States naval service. -Husnock 14:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (Lieutenant, USNR)

I was the second person to remove it, but have left it this time pending further discussion and respecting your position as a USN reserve officer. The reality is that neither ranks were active. Pershing was still alive, and therefore a General of the Armies existed in the time frame we are talking about (and the note specifies it's a technicality that the rank is included). The difference with Admiral of the Navy is that Dewey, the only person to have held the rank, died in 1917.
Additionally, although this is too subjective to even discuss, I feel that Admiral of the Navy which was designed to mirror the Royal Navy Admiral of the Fleet (and one might therfore also argue) General of the Armies were de facto forerunners of the five star rank, but as as new rank title has been decided, then by default of tradition the older rank gets classified as a more senior rank. My argument is only usurped by the successful evolution of belief in the 6-star principal into official realms. Whatever view you take, the bottom line is that no Admiral of the Navy was alive in WW2 and furthermore, it was not a post that was open to be filled.
Dainamo 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Dewey was dead in 45, this is true, but Pershing was not. There was a war department conference where the then Secretary of War stated that Pershing was senior to the newly created 5 star Generals. At the same time, it was decieded that Admiral of the Navy was senior to Fleet Admiral. Tradition holds them as 6 star ranks, to be ever again appointed if Congress so chooses. About Admiral of the Navy mirroring a British rank, I don't believe that was ever considered. The rank was as a result of the Spanish American War and had little to do with the Royal Navy. (Remember, we were less than a century out from the War of 1812 when you guys burned down our capitol! Down the Redcoats!) -Husnock 15:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If we didn't burn Washington you wouldn't have gotten [sic] that lovely white paint on the presidents' home. Yes Pershing was alive (read my message above) which is why I thought General of the Armies got away with a mention. I refer to the article Admiral of the Navy concerning the RN connection. My point was that, tradition aside, the 6 star naval rank was both inactive and not held by a livng person. Dainamo 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Admiral of the Navy rank existed in WWII whether or no it was active at the time. So, I suggest that wikipedia keep this rank in the table. It is irrelevant to talk about the existence of a person appointed to the rank in question. When a rank exists it exists! One could always argue on the matter of ranks equivalence to that of General of the Armies. It seems to me that Admiral of the Navy got the status of "six-stars" (General of the Armies) during the war when the rank of Fleet Admiral was intoduced to US Navy. The table seems to be correct on this point, which is to say that it is incorrect on many other parts. Only lapse is that other navies in WWII did not have an "six-star" equivalent as the table shows.

Comparative ranks discuss[edit]

For Husnock and for Halibu. If you think that I -Tt1, Nixer, Alexr23 or others, that continue to think, but I not they. If I consider that in the certain cases I agree with them I have on this right. I and these users consider that we write correct data and you or others can disagree with them. But you cannot forbid to have to me the opinion.You many times ignored data proved by others too. About flags - in this table there should be official State flags or national flags. Not flag Polish army or Marine, and a national Polish flag. See Polish State flag and*w27. The Marshal of the USSR is equivalent to Admiral Flota between 1944-1955 and to equivalent OF-10 code and Marshal of the USSR was above than Admiral Flota rank between 1940-1944. Also in Italian ranks in the old version, there are mistakes and inexact equivalence, therefore I and others have corrected it. For an example: Contrammiraglio equivalent to Generale di Brigata and to OF-6. Where Generale di C.A. designato d'Armata, Ammiraglio di Squadra designato di Armata , Ammiraglio di Squadra con Incarichi Speciali, Generale di Corpo d'Armata con Incarichi Speciali, Generale di Squadra Aerea con Incarichi Speciali-all of them in OF-8 not writen. See,,, Looking on written here the facts I believe that my changes exact were right also. I with you had only two disputable questions: 1) flags. 2) Polski Admirał floty and Generał Armii. If you do not agree with me about flags discuss this theme and can to change it, but please don't return all clause. All other data check up and they 100% exact. Data about Polski Admirał floty and Generał Armii I shall check up later. -Roitr 13:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Latinus! My and your flag - the same. Only mine with the arms and yours without. I do not think that because of such small detail it is necessary to have such big dispute! And this small detail not an occasion to return all page!-Roitr 14:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What about your "Italian ranks"? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Latinus! I ask you - you that be not able to read? Look a mark №4 about OF-10 and outrank - their equivalence approximate and establishing an exact correlation among them is impossible. NATO OF-10 code is used here merely for clarity. In my version this page it is precisely visible, that ranks written to the certain column mean that this rank in this country above previous and and it does not mean that these ranks above other ranks in other countries and does not compare them. Generalissimo of USSR is'n got. But Generalissimo of USSR it's approximate equivalent to Generalissimo in other countries, Senior Marshals approximate equivalent to Senior Marshals and Marshals approximate equivalent to Marshals. When I will add the Chinese ranks where was Generalissimo, was Senior Marshal, was Marshal and "four star" General, then you can see and will understand me. What about "Italian ranks"? - if you can read, you can see many sites which I wrote above. Then you will see that in the old version of this page are absent some ranks or ranks are not equivalent. I think that you to search for an occasion to return my changes in this clauses and to argue with you I have no meaning. I ask you that you have against me? Please do not return all page again. I much and hard worked above it!-Roitr 16:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I write compromise variant with Free French ranks by Roitr, with correct flags by Halibu & by Latinus, with British Commonwealth Realm by Grant65, with outranks in one line, with mark №4 for Outranks and for OF-10 codes & with my & Roitr correct Italian ranks!-Tt1 18:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism alert of this article[edit]

The constant edit warring on this article, undertaken by a single user with at least four sockpuppets (and numerous more anon IP addresses) has progressed from simple content dispute to outright vandalism. The user(s) is apparently edit warring for kicks, reinserting highly disputed information over and over again, using sockpuppets to avoid three revert blocks, and then refusing to discuss such radical changes, merely stating that other users are "wrong". The vandalism of this article has been reported here with the user(s) responsible reported here. This article has now been declared a victim of persistent vandalism and further reverts and insertion of nonsense information, by the user(s) previously mentioned, will be treated as vandalism and the users dealt with accordingly. -Husnock 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • For Husnock! Stop reverts and blocks all, everything and everyone again and again. Stop to ignore other users. Everyone who in what does not agree with you, you consider as the same user. You have 100 proofs about it? Similar IP adress is not the proof. See for "Comparative ranks" in User talk:Roitr and for "My revision" (And in 100 times I repeat that not Roitr, but in some clauses I am agree with him, though not in all and with you was not agree-with some not checked up by you data.) in User talk:Tt1 - It is the free encyclopedia and in my opinion you exceed authority of the administrator! I REVERT YOU again to very good compromise variant of these page by Tt1. After many disputes and wars it is a good variant!

For Latinus! That that Tt1 and Roitr from Israel is does not say nothing and is not the proof that them same user. I from Israel too. May be you can wish revert and to block all from Israel? -Alexr23 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Sigh, if you aren't a sockpuppet, then I don't know what you are. You created that account the day before yesterday and you know your way around so quickly - you even know how to sign your name! Genuine n00bs usually have no idea how to and have to have it carefully explained. You are getting reverted for adding bogus ranks (what the heck is a "Kommodore") and messing with the Italian ranks, you are getting blocked for trolling and violating the 3RR. What more do you want? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I not the genius. I know these things because for a long time on the Russian Wikipedia and have written many clauses, including about Israel. You can find me under a name ru:user:rr23. For "Kommodore" see [4] -Alexr23 19:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
        • This has nothing to do with content dispute on the article. This has to do with a block user using mutliple IDs and anon IP addresses to start edit wars and continue to revert again and again, adding unsourced and nonsense information. I am also a little bit insulted that you would try and think that you are fooling people by denying you are not the same user. The evidence is overwhealming. If you feel that you are being treated badly, appeal all of this at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Otherwise, these edit wars troll attacks against the article will be reverted and constant violations of the three revert rule will be blocked. Give this up, it is old and people are getting tired of this. -Husnock 20:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
          • It seems to me that the main problem is that the user(s) to revert this article to their version over and over again fail to see the title. This list should be about World War II, not post-WWII ranks. Hence the problems with Kommodore, Generał armii and so on. Halibutt 20:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

About Kommodore, not I first add it, dut it is correct rank. See , , , -Tt1 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The following rant is copied from my talk page as I feel it is better posted here for all users involved to see. -Husnock 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why you have removed "Stop reverts and blocks all again and again" writen by Alexr23. You are not assured that you right or are afraid of the truth!

Million time was written that I NOT use by sockpuppets and million time was written that I NOT other users(Roitr,Nixer,Alexr23). I do not know why, but at new connection to the Internet I receive another IP address. Probably it is specificity of the providers in Israel.I start to hate you, because you ignore me and constantly are at war with me. You are no 100% proofs and you not the policeman that me constantly to punish. Why you block me, I do not today 3RR violations. I too consider that you exceed authority of the administrator. Why you have returned my compromise variant version, if itself write above:"I am actually out of the editing content portion, since I know nothing about the new ranks being added and haven't contributed to the Polish/Greek/Free French info". If you haven't contributed to these rank, why you delite the contribution of others. Why you delite Free French ranks and correct Italian ranks? Also that is bad for you in my compromise version. I write compromise variant with Free French ranks by Roitr, with correct flags by Halibu & by Latinus, with British Commonwealth Realm by Grant65, with outranks in one line, with mark №4 for Outranks and for OF-10 codes & with my & Roitr correct Italian ranks! In these version I tried to consider opinions of all arguing parties and of all arguing users (Grant65,Roitr,Nixer,Alexr23,Halibu,Latinus,Dainamo and anothers).What in it is bad? If you do not agree with me in one or several points, that correct it but do not return all clause! I have not absolutely understood you looking for your dialogue with Latinus. You write that will continue to return my changes in these page. What I have no right to edit clauses in Wikipedia? It is the free encyclopedia! I very hope for your understanding! -Tt1 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection due to heavy edit war[edit]

I have again fully protected this article. The edit war has ragged out of control with one user adding disputed information over and over again and then using sockpuppets to bypass a Three Revert Block. As I was not involved with the Polish/French/Italian rank additions (or for that matter, have the knowledge to understand them), this action has nothing to do with content dispute but rather what is percieved as vandalism of the article. By my count, a single user with two known sockpuppets and countless ip addresses has reverted and ranted against changes made by no less than seven other Wikipedia editors. The user(s) in question has given no indication that they intend to calm down and discuss these changes and has been blocked at least three times in as many days for Three Revert violations. The article is therefore protected until this rather nasty situation can be resolved. -Husnock 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You impudently say lies. I were not against changes made by no less than seven other Wikipedia editors. I only ate to come to the compromise with you and between them, but I see you to the compromise you are not capable .It you - user which in question has given no indication that they intend to calm down. If you continue to think that I and they the same users that you are simply silly and obstinate. I always discuss and I write about the changes which do in this list. You, but not I ignore many facts and many sites, including original, which I specified in disputes.You also leave from the direct answer to mine a questions:"Why you delite Free French ranks and correct Italian ranks? Also what is bad for you in my compromise version. I write compromise variant with Free French ranks by Roitr, with correct flags by Halibu & by Latinus, with British Commonwealth Realm by Grant65, with outranks in one line, with mark №4 for Outranks and for OF-10 codes & with my & Roitr correct Italian ranks! In these version I tried to consider opinions of all arguing parties and of all arguing users " What in it is bad? What my data not exact? I wait for the full answer to my questions and not of subterfuges from them!-Tt1 22:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You were blocked and reverted because you used sockpuppets to bypass the Three Revert Rule. Your own edits confirm you are using multiple User IDs. Tt1 asks a question, Alexr23 responds to the answer, and then Roitr reverts the edits. You are all the same user! The edit histories speak for themselves. Ranting and calling other users "silly and obstinate" and then telling them that you "hate them" doesnt help matters. As stated before, if you a problem with any of this, go make your case on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I've already asked other admins to look at this article and the situation which has developed. -Husnock 23:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Look, Tt1 (and sockpuppets), when you get unblocked tomorrow, come back and we'll discuss it all. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Latinus for advice .I shall necessarily will be back tomorrow and we all it discuss. I saw that you not against the compromise version and you have not returned its. Thanks still times. And if in these my version there are small discrepancies, that we shall discuss them-Tt1 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For Husnock! To continue to prove to you that I and they not the same user - it is useless though it not the truth. It is the truth that my edit history is similar to them edit history, but it is not identical and it not the proof that I it they. I not in all with them agree. You continue to think on another - this your right.I have a question to you? If I not to do a trouble is more than the Three Revert Rule, you again continue to return me or not? I have is right to edit this page or not? I can supplement this page or not? If you are acting only as an admin, dealing with Three Revert Rule infringements, as you wrote earlier, that I can understand you, but if you have something against me or hate me I can not understand you and it against rules of this encyclopedia!-Tt1 22:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

For Latinus and other! Please look my new compromise variant . Please write what discrepancies and mistakes in your opinion is in it. Thank you.-Tt1 22:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Mary Shelley[edit]

After spending much (enjoyable) time creating the first version of this page (the design of which remains) and the WWI equivalent I am pleased with the many contributions and corrections as I didn't have the whole picture. And thanks to Necrothesp, Husnock and many others it has evolved.
Recently returning after a period of absence and seeing this talk page makes me feel like Dr. Frankenstein.
I propose that all of us list below, without comment (or with comment under a different heading as I have no right to say what can and cannot be said) the main points of contention, whether or not appearing above, that are in this edit war and then we can systematically address them one by one. Dainamo 23:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The current version[edit]

The current version is completely improper and based on a vandalized version. This is a mixture of ranks of different times with wild fantasies of Tt1. For example, in British army of that time there was no commodores of 1st and second class, Soviet General-Major is not correspondent to Brigadier General, Japan army also had no rank correspondent to Brigadier General. Soviet Chief Marshal of service was superior to Marshal of service and Marshal of the Soviet Union was superior to both, there was no Midshipman rank, Marshal of specific service was not only in aviation, Soviet Admiral correspondent to British Admiral, not Vice-Admiral, and many other mistakes, big and small.

Since there is evidence that even the temporary page has been vandalized by Tt1, I am afraid to unclose the location of the version I am now working on. The main aim is to merge the recent additions of military ranks of different countries with the proper system of ranking.--Nixer 10:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And again face the same problems we had recently? Bad idea. Wikipedia should be open to anyone and I've been bashed several times for working on articles in some hidden place. But if you really, really have to prepare your own version of the article, then at least please try to incorporate the good changes done by the sockpuppets (Italian ranks seem flawed indeed and the French ranks). Halibutt 13:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to work alone, but welcome other participants. The only reason why I do not uncover the location is the fear that it will be vandalised. If you want to participate, I can send you the location by e-mail.--Nixer 13:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You might want to make a sub-page of your user page. It is then courtesy that this is an extension of your user page and you can pretty much edit as you please. You can even put a notice on it, stating that you are working on a temp version of an article and ask others to contribute. If you dont like the contributions, you can revert tham as changes to your user page. I did something similar when I was privately working on a article (a project I later abandoned). -Husnock 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nixer! I do not have wild fantasies. In many cases you are right, but not in all. I completely support you in dispute about the Generalissimo of the USSR and on other outrank ranks. But about the Soviet General-major will disagree with you and about the Soviet Admiral. The general-major in 1940 has replaced rank Komdiv and till this year there was Soviet 100% equivalent rank to brigade generals of other countries - is Kombrig, there was Soviet rank Komdiv - 100% equivalent rank to the General-majors of other countries, there was Soviet rank Komkor - 100% equivalent rank to the General-lieutenants of other countries, there was a Soviet rank the Commandarm of 2-nd rank - which equivalence is disputable - it can be equivalent both to OF-8 and to OF-9 categories of other countries (that is both to the General-lieutenants and to full Generals of other countries), there was a Soviet rank the Commandarm of 1-st rank - 100% equivalent rank to full Generals of other countries and there was a rank the Marshal of the USSR - 100% equivalent rank to Marshals of other countries. After introduction in 1940 in the USSR generals ranks - rank Kombrig has been abolished and together with Kombrig has been replaced by the General-major, which equivalence too is disputable - it can be equivalent both to OF-6 and to OF-7 categories of other countries (that is both to brigade generals and to the General-majors of other countries). In Soviet and in modern Russian armies the commander of brigade - or the Colonel or the General-major. All it concerns to equivalence of the Soviet Admiral - its equivalence also disputable - it can be equivalent both to OF-8 and to OF-9 categories of other countries (that is both to Vice-admirals and to Admirals of other countries). You are right that the rank the Marshal of the USSR is not completely equivalent to ranks of the Chief Marshals arm of the services, but as in these arms of the service, and in particular in aircraft there was no rank above and these ranks can be approximately equivalents when we compare them to ranks OF-10 category of other countries. You write that ranks of the Chief Marshals arm of the service not only for aviation and they above ranks of Marshals arm of the service - in it you are absolutely right and all it is well visible in the temporary page. You are not right about British army of that time there was no commodores of 1st and second class - look WWII Вritnavyranks , also you are not right about Japan army had no rank correspondent to Brigadier General - had Jün Shō. About there was no Midshipman rank - I have not understood you. Where and in what country you had in view of it were not. In the current version of this page also are absent or are not equivalent some Italian ranks and are absent French ranks - So many users also think as I. You wrote earlier: " Thanks for support the proper version of the table" - is meansthat my version of this page not bad. Thanks for attention and I am sorry that you have been blocked many times because Roitr edits as well as I. They consider that we with him the same user.--Tt1 14:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not right. Most of Kombrigs became Polkovniks, not Genelal-Majors. There was no equivalint to Kombrig after the reform.

Chief Mashal of service and Marshal of service were both offically equal to General of the Army, while former being something more "honorary". Marshal of the Soviet Union significantly outranks the both.

Your link about British army corresponds to modern time, not to WWII period. About Japan ranks you are not right too.--Nixer 14:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Because not all from Kombrigs became colonels automatically, and the certifying commission decided what rank to appropriate yesterday's комбригу and the some it have appropriated a rank "general-major" that and to judge their equivalence difficultly and disputably. In Soviet and in modern Russian armies the commander of brigade - or the Colonel or the General-majorthough, it is rare. I have a uncle in Russia - the general-major and he is the commander of brigade. Therefore I consider as I and you are right. We can leave my version only to make a mark about it: "equivalence of this is disputable - it can be equivalent both to OF-6 and to OF-7 categories of other countries (that is both to brigade generals and to the General-majors of other countries)". You wrote that Chief Mashal of service above Mashal of service, why now you compare them. I consider it not absolutely correctly and in my opinion Chief Mashal of Aviation is more equivalent to British Marshal of the RAF and to General of Air Forces of USA. My link about British army corresponds to WWII period WWII Military Ranks Archive. About Italian ranks and absent French ranks I am right. About Japan ranks I am right too.--Tt1 15:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Here I am only right. The rank corresponding to Brigabier General (or Kombrig) was abolished with the reform. There was no corresponding rank after the reform. General-Major was corresponding to Major General of British army and General-Leutenant - to British Leutenant General. Your sence is not significant unless you presented the sources. --Nixer 15:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This may be a bad idea, but let me toss in a thought or two into this dispute. Given that the main disagreement seems to be over whether rank X in one country is equivalent to rank Y in another country, it may be a good idea to

  • indicate that this is a rough comparison and in some cases may not be entirely accurate
  • (this is quite tedious) list on this talk page, for each rank: the responsibilities, the sizes/types of the units under command, the next highest and lowest ranks, etc., and then have a discussion over which ranks are equivalent. This should make things much clearer, the decisions over rough equivalences of ranks should be easier, and these decisions would be harder to oppose.

These are my two cents; maybe it's a bad idea, but seems to me like worth trying. ikh (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi ikh! In a bottom of my page is Note that there is considerable debate as to the exact equivalency of officers of OF-6 equivalent rank and above. May be we can make to us more detailed Note? I ADD in a bottom to my page - Hierarchy of military organisation. What do you think about it?-Tt1 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

SHOO! SHOO! --DmitryKo 10:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian on Talk Page[edit]

Is it really necessary to use Russian here? I doubt that most people accesing this talk page would be able to understand it. ikh (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. This is an English encyclopedia and while Russian can be use don anybody's user page who so chooses, having lengthy discussions on an article talk page, all in Russian, is very counterproductive and unfair to other users who may wish to contribute but don't understand the language. -Husnock 16:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest this should be removed to a User talk page. --DmitryKo 10:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have moved out all the Russian text to its own subpage. I encourage certiaen users to avoid having such lengthy non-English discussions as it fills up the talk page with non-engoish script thyat a lot of people can't read. -Husnock 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"non engoish" is a marvelously ironic typo :) Dainamo 09:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian Brigadier/Major General[edit]

He says that he has an uncle in Russia who is General-Major - the commander of brigade. I argue that if a General-Major commands a brigade, it does not make him Brigadier General (there is no such rank in Russia, though there were some debates during 1990s to introduce a Бригадный генерал rank).--Nixer 17:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The lowest level of General (and I include the rank of Brigadier in the British Army) corresponded with each other. In the Germany the role of Major General reflected Briadier general in other countries and parity followed through upwards, with there being no gap as the rank of Colonel General was used. This traditon also occured in Imperial Russia and later in the Soviet Union, albeit with a colonel general ranking behind a general rather than above. The unit of command may or may not be relevant as the definition of military units does vary between countries. ....And please this is an English-speaking Wiki community and it is unhelpful, if not rude, to have streams of Russian discussion. Dainamo 01:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No. May be in Imperial Russia, but not in Soviet Union. There was such proposal by Voroshilov - to equalize General-Major with Brogadier General in other countries (and with former Soviet rank of Combrig), but this proposal was not accepted.--Nixer 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree about this point with Dainamo,Necrothesp, Nik42 - it is right, and does not agree with Nixer. Note that there is doubt about rank equivalency in countries that have both colonel-generals and generals but no brigadier-generals, such as German Empire and Russia - in Germany it is considered that a colonel-general equates to an OF-9 rank, a general to OF-8, in modern Russia, in Imperial Russia and in Soviet Union (since 1940) it is considered that a colonel-general equates to an OF-8 rank, a general to OF-9, a lieutenant-general to OF-7, and a major-general to OF-6 (i.e. the ranks below colonel-general all move down one grade).--Tt1 13:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"...There was such proposal by Voroshilov - to equalize General-Major with Brogadier General in other countries (and with former Soviet rank of Combrig), but this proposal was not accepted."--Nixer please cite your source for this. It does seem to conflict with other evidence. Furthermore such proposals are more often to allign a rank with other nations in a positive fashion, not down. Could your source be saying Voroshilov propsosed a General-Major to be considered as equivalent to a Major Gen. rather tan a Brig. Gen, but this was not accepted ?? Dainamo 11:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here it is

СЕКРЕТНО Экз.ед. Политбюро ЦК ВКП(б) товарищу СТАЛИНУ Председателю СНК СССР товарищу МОЛОТОВУ

Представляю проект новых воинских званий для начальствующего состава. При обсуждении этого вопроса с заместителями мы пришли к выводу о необходимости принятия в нашей армии такого же количества генеральских чинов, как это было в царской армии и имеет место в ряде европейских армий - германской, французской, английской. В данное время мы имеем военных званий, равных генеральским, 5 (комбриг, комдив, комкор, ко­мандарм 2 ранга и командарм 1 ранга). Целесообразно военные звания комдив и комкор объединить в одном звании генерал-лейтенант, а военные звания командарм 2 ранга и командарм 1 ранга также объединить в одном звании генерал пехоты (артиллерии, кавалерии, авиации, танковых войск и т.д.). Следующее высшее военное звание в Красной Армии - Маршал Советского Союза, что соответствует такому же чину в иностранных буржуазных армиях. Полагаем, что добавлять какие-либо другие военные звания выше маршала нет надобности. Прошу рассмотреть предложения и утвердить.

(подпись) К. ВОРОШИЛОВ

There was also a table along with this proposal. There was very special rank system in the USSR that time. Voroshilov was an old Tsarist officer and the rank system of Tsarist army was the most acceptable for him.

This says that Voroshilov proposed General-Major to be equal to Combrig but it was not accepted:

Ворошилов не выбрасывает звание равное комбригу. Он предлагает именовать его как генерал-майор, т.е. как бы вроде и генерал, но и вроде как не совсем (см. пункт Во-вторых...). Последовавшая затем просто отмена звания для соответствия должности командира бригады (комбриг) и сегодня создает неудобства. Бригады в армии есть, а вот соотвествующего звания не существует. Ведь бригада больше полка и штатное звание полковника для командира полка и командира бригады явно обидно для командира значительно более крупной части.


Also I have cited that the most of Combrigs became Polkovniks, not General-Majors. General-Major in Soviet army generally commanded a division.--Nixer 19:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nixer Thank you. However, I cannot believe how obtuse you are being The number of people using this wiki who can read Cyrillic is limited before you even expect them to read a Russian source as text. All I can make out is a table with Combrig and Major General alongside each other, which I assume was his proposal. Please translate the relevant parts of the text to show that the specfic part of his proposal was rejectic. Do this and I will support you all the way! Dainamo 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. In short, Voroshilov proposed a rank system in general similar to that of Imperial Russia. It was the first project to implement such ranks in the USSR. Later the source (Yu. Veremeev) says "Voroshilov did not throw out a rank equal to Combrig. He suggested to name it General-Major, i.e. somethig like General, but something not enough (see the "second" point). Followed later simple abolishing of the rank corresponding to commander of brigade (Combrig) makes troubles even now. Brigades do exist in army, but there is not any corresponding rank. Really, a brigade is more than regiment and a rank of Polkovnik for commander of brigade evidently insulting for him as for commander of significantly larger unit."--Nixer 23:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you have proved this particular case and I would support it now. Dainamo 09:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Please do not support all that delirium. For example, there was no such rank as Admiral of the Navy in the US army that time. Instead there had been suggested equal Flag Admiral rank but never been accepted. Please read these articles.--Nixer 12:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Corrected German ranks OF-6 to OF-9 to match appropriate UK/US ranks. For example previous version had German major general equal to UK/US major general, which sounds good but is wrong as pointed out above by Dainamo and Tt1. The German ranks that don't quite fit are Kommodore/Oberführer, which have neither US/UK nor German army equivalents. Highnote 02:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tt1 is sockpuppet of the long-term vandal Roitr (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr).--Nixer 03:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


In (18) is a mistake. The german word is Kriegsmarine. --Obersachse 18:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So, nobody wants to discuss further?[edit]

--Nixer 12:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Polish ranks[edit]

There was no such rank as Generał armii in Poland. It was introduced in 1954.--Nixer 15:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I already mentioned that several times in a row - yet the people revert warring over this article seem to ignore that, just like other corrections by other users. Perhaps the best way would be to block this article. Anyway, after seeing all of my work reverted on sight I lost any incentive to add more states to the list. Not worth the effort. Halibutt 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This rank has been added by Tt1 - a permanent vandal, whith which we cannot do anything because he has several sockpuppets. Some of his accounts has been blocked indefinitely, but he somehow managed to unblock.--Nixer 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Generał brygady - Brigade General??? Why is it in Major General lvl?UeArtemis (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

U.S Admiral of the Navy and General of the Armies[edit]

Clearly these existed as aknowledged ranks in tradition, and I have consudered the following (feel free to extend points, but sign them): Dainamo 10:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. The tradition in both services acknowledged each rank as the most senior.Dainamo 10:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Pershing was still alive. Dainamo 10:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. If you have General of the Armies for Pershing, you should really have the Admiral of the Navy as well. Dainamo 10:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


  1. Both titles can be considered precursors of the permanent five star ranks. Dainamo 10:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
In 1944, the Secretary of War held a press conference where he was specifically asked if General of the Armies and Admiral of the Navy should be considered six star ranks. He said that they should not be, BUT that were separate and superior ranks to General of the Army and Fleet Admiral. In the 1950s, MacArthur was nominated for promotion to General of the Armies and Congress then started referring to the rank as a "Six Star General". In addition, the United States armed forces hs never considered them equivalent or precursors to five star ranks and cadets and midshipman are routinely taught that these two ranks and six star equivalents. -Husnock 14:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC) (Lieutenant, USNR)
  1. Only by virtue tradition of first appointment being the most senior, are they considered a notional six star appointment. Dainamo 10:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. An alternative to "Admiral of the Navy" was considered fpr a six star rank in WWII meaning the latter might rightly be argued obselete (although had this happened there would be some claiming the Admiral of the Navy contiuned as the most senior rank and now had to be a seven star rank). Dainamo 10:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. No one was active in either role in WWII and if we set a precedent for historical ranks that had not techincally been scrapped, we may find the whole thing gets very messy. Dainamo 10:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The proper version[edit]

I nearly to complete the work on non-vandalized version of this article by merging the proper ranking with recent additions. Please do not edit it without discussion. Any suggestions welcome. Some issues, taken into account:

1. Polish ranks are historically shifted up one position from similar-sounding ranks in other countries due to absence of full general rank (which was introduced later). This fact stated in articles on Polish ranks.

2. As per above, the USSR did not have a rank corresponding to Brigadier General.

3. In most countries lower Navy ranks (Captain and Lietenant) are superior to similar-sounding army ranks.

4. Air force ranks which are similar to generic army ranks not shown.

--Nixer 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is broadly satisfactory. What I will take issue with is the division of OF-10 ranks and above. The modern OF-10 lable is a little erroneous and is only given as guidance, but it does signify the highest rank achieveable. [It reminds me somewhat of the Amplifier designed in the movie Spinal Tap that rises to 11 on the volume rather than 10]. 10 is the highest and because some countries designate higher ranks within that grade, it does not make them necessarily make them superior to the highest rank in other countries. An interesting argument was previously given against this point using Luxembourg, where the highest rank due to the size of its forces is a Colonel. I agree, in this instance it would be ridiculous to put a Luxembourg colonel as equivalent to the highest rank in other nations, but this is an disingenuous argument as far as the featured nations are concerned. It may be the case that the Marshal of the soviet Union commanded more ground forces than a British Field Marshal but then a British Admiral of the Fleet would have had more ship under him than his Russian equivalent so size of force is not an absolute measure. The bottom line is that in the countries where they had no rank above what is loosely compared to "OF-10" a higher level of seniority would have still be applied to the individuals in chief positions without raising their substantive rank above that of others, but they were still not inferior to those iun other countries who had conveniently created higher titles. Dainamo 17:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I cannot get why the modern NATO scale should be applied to the time of WW2 and especially to the Soviet Union. I agree this table may be non-ideal, but applying NATO scale to the USSR is not a good solution. May be we should extend the cell "OF-10" to all supreme ranks? But this still not correct...--Nixer 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There is the other reason other than it provide a useful system of benchmarks that is country-neutral. The column may or may not be needed but it does say approximate NATO equivalent, so there isn't really a big issue. What IS incorrect is showing that A Marshal of the Soviet Union ranks above an American 5 star General, he is in fact equivalent to the most senior 5 star general BUT he is also not inferior to an American 6 Star General. Henceforth the divisions at OF10 and above are only relevant within each country and this is why the OF10 should be merged then split only by individual country. Dainamo 12:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you better like this version?--Nixer 16:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I am going to declare myself Grand Supreme Generalisimo. Does this make me higher than the highest rank in ALL other countries? No it doesn't. Dainamo 18:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
If you succseed, it obviously does. Just like if you become a Field Marshal it makes you supreme to any Lieutenant General. Try to become first. By the way, I cant get why do you think Generalissimo is equal to Field Marshal of RAF? Is there any source? What we can say for certain is that British Field Marshal is equal to US General of the Army and Soviet Marshal and Chief Marshal. Nothing more. By the way, in Chinese military of that time also there was Generalissimo rank.--Nixer 06:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another protection[edit]

It seems that once again this article is being hit with an edit war by an non ip user with strong ties to previous sockpuppets of blocked and banned users. The anon user is inserting previously protected and disputed information and has, on two occasions, placed a protection tag on the article (and then removed it the very next edit). For this reason, I have semi-protected the article to prevent another edit war. -Husnock 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Linking ranks[edit]

I think we should start linking the various ranks to the articles about them. Tehre are several very interesting articles, espeically about the Russian and German ranks. -Husnock 17:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

French ranks ?[edit]

I think it would be appropriate to include french military ranks on this page, but given the issues on it, I prefer to submit my idea to discussion. Here is a list of the ranks during WWII :

  • special ranks : Maréchal de France not a rank but a dignity of the state (dignité dans l'État).
  • OF10: Amiral de la Flotte (Navy) created for François Darlan.
  • OF9 : Général d'armée (Army) Général d'armée aérienne (Air Force) amiral (Navy).
  • OF8 : Général de corps d'armée (A) Général de corps d'armée aérienne (AF) Vice-amiral d'escadre (N). These three rank levels were officially style and position (rang et appellation) and not ranks.
  • OF7 : Général de division (A) Général de division aérienne (AF) Vice-amiral (N).
  • OF6 : Général de brigade (A) Général de brigade aérienne (AF) Contre-amiral (N).
  • OF5 : colonel (A&AF) capitaine de vaisseau (N).
  • OF4 : lieutenant-colonel (A&AF) capitaine de frégate (N).
  • OF3 : commandant (A&AF) capitaine de frégate (N).
  • OF2 : capitaine (A&AF) lieutenant de vaisseau (N).
  • OF1 : lieutenant (A&AF) enseigne de vaisseau de première classe (N), sous-lieutenant (A&AF) enseigne de vaisseau de deuxième classe (N).
  • OF(D) : Aspirant (A, AF & N).

Any suggestions or corrections ? 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I would go ahead and add it in. Looks good. 01:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Can't the layout of this article be changed. There were many other countries who participated in WWII who are not listed. I was about to add the Netherlands and Hungary, but it does make the cells very tight. Can't we decide on some kind of format - perhaps have more than one tables with only five countries in each. --Latinus 12:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

May be we should add another table?--Nixer 20:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Another table perhaps, this does say MAJOR participants. 16:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Netherlands was a major participant in both the Pacific and Europe. Hungary was huge for the axis as was Romania, in their Russian campaigns. I suggest switching the template from vertical to horizontal. 22:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Latinus. Break it into several tables with five countries each. Each table could contain a cluster of countries, maybe organized in some sensible fashion: (1) Major Powers: US, UK, Soviet Union, Germany, Japan; (2) Western European Allies: France, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway; (3) Axis partners: Italy, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Slovakia; (4) Eastern European Allies: Poland, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece etc. Cosal 00:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The only issue I have with this is, that Bulgaria is placed under allies in Eastern Europe, while Romania is placed under Axis powers. Of course, Finland should be added as well. 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ref conversion[edit]

I converted the refs because none of them were functioning properly. Just to clear up any confusion. Эйрон Кинни (t) 11:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Marshal of the Empire?[edit]

There is a British rank higher than Field Marshal, equivalent to Reichsmarschall - Marshal of the Empire. Although it is held [de facto] by the Sovereign and noone has ever been promoted to it, I think it needs to be included. Any thoughts? Tim

Is it held by the sovereign or delegated? It is unclear from the article.--Nixer 18:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The article appears to be a hoax, actually. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ritt baron[edit]

Rittmeister was also used (I think) by WW1 German air service; von Richthoven was Rittmeister Manfred Baron vR.

Has anybody considered a pre-WW1/historical table? Trekphiler 17:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Finnish ranks[edit]

Axishistory has the ranks here: Navy, Army, Air Force. However, it seems impossible to add them to this comparative list. Sometimes they match with the English rank, and sometimes with the German (as they've listed at Axishistory). Like Kenraaliluutnantti seems to match with the English rank Lieutnant-General, but it's translated as Generalleutnant, which is in different place. --Pudeo (Talk) 12:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Figured out I'd need to skip OF-6. Finland is now added! --Pudeo (Talk) 13:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Finns have rank of Yliluutnantti between Luutnantti and Kapteeni. It's same with Oberleutnant in Germany. (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not during World War II. --Pudeo' 05:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Generalissimo(Nat. China)[edit]

Shouldn't Republic of China part also include Generalissimo as Chiang Kai-shek held that rank?--Staberinde 11:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Scroll on the template[edit]

I added a scroll to list that it would not stretch the page, which it did even at 1280x1024 resolution. However, the scroll only appears at the bottom of the template. Does anybody know how to scroll could be added to the top also? --Pudeo 10:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian Naval ranks[edit]

It seems to me the Italian naval rank of Ammiraglio di Divisione is missing, and that it should be placed in the Italian OF-7 position and the Contrammiraglio moved to the Italian OF-6 position since it is consistent with and "Ammiraglio_di_divisione" on the Italian wikipedia page

The talk page history suggests this was an item of some contention, but it seems to me any special ranks or combination ranks such as those discussed, e.g., Generale di C.A. designato d'Armata, Ammiraglio di Squadra designato di Armata, Ammiraglio di Squadra con Incarichi Speciali, Generale di Corpo d'Armata con Incarichi Speciali, Generale di Squadra Aerea con Incarichi Speciali, etc., are temporary or "special assignment" ranks that could be addressed using a footnote to acknowledge these ranks existed and their effect on the main rank structure, rather than ignoring what appears to be a legitimate Italian naval rank.

If this seems reasonable I propose changing the Italian OF-7 and OF-6 ranks, and let anyone with knowledge of how the "special assignment" ranks worked add a footnote detailing that information. Astro$01 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dai Gensu[edit]

For what I know of this rank, the Japanese considered it equal to a rank held by God; therefore I have moved it up on the rank tree to the top most tier, putting it on the same level as the Russian Generalissimo rank. I doubt that during WWII, the Japanese ever thought that Stalin outranked the Emperor. And, from what I can tell by the edit history of this article, Stalin's rank above all others was the result of a lengthy edit war where a pro-Russian editor wanted to say Stalin outranked everyone. I think it was connected to the whole User:Roitr business, but I am not sure. -OberRanks 18:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately all that crap by Roitr has been already cleaned away. By the way have you any sources how this rank is generally translated into English?-- 22:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting: then in-fact Nazi Germany had the same rank by some accounts: Hoheren Sinnestrager as per this source - ...The terminology is quite suggestive. To call God a Hoheren Sinnestrager meant linguistically to give him some place in the military hierarchy, since the Nazis had changed the military... - (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Romanian ranks[edit]

Does anyone have any source for Romanian military ranks during this period? The list of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross (of the German Iron Cross) shows the ranks of Colonel General and Captain General, but these ranks are no longer in use according to Romanian Armed Forces ranks and insignia. Presumably Colonel General was equivalent to the German Generaloberst, but Captain General seems to have been a junior general rank rather than the supreme commander that it has been in other countries. Opera hat (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Both "Captain General" and "Colonel General" are conspicuous by their absence here. Opera hat (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Enlisted Ranks[edit]

The name of the article only states "Military ranks" but the first line of the article states "officer ranks" and only officer ranks are present.

Should the article not be expanded to include all military ranks in the near future? D Boland (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

More than a year later, and the same problem is still not resolved. Should be "officer ranks" or expanded. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC).
I agree. I just came here looking for comparative ORs and they weren't there. I'll move it now. Opera hat (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

German full general ranks[edit]

The footnoting is presently unclear, but full Generals of the Heer and Luftwaffe were considered equal, and their full rank reflected their branch. To the best of my knowledge, the branches were Infanterie, Kavallerie, Artillerie, Panzertruppe, Nachrichtentruppe, Pionier, Gebirgstruppe, Flieger, Fallschirmtruppe and Flakartillerie. The latter three were all Luftwaffe-specific, while the article at present suggests that the Luftwaffen contained only General der Flieger ranks. The footnote should be changed in some fashion to reflect this. Xt828 (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: footnote 25, wasn't there also a General der Schnelltruppen for the motorized or fast troops? I know I have seen that before but I can't remember for whom it was given to. Also, is it wrong for General der Nachrichtentruppe to be translated as "Signal" Troops? What about translating "General der Pionier" as "Engineer troops," so that it clearer in meaning to casual readers? Also, shouldn't it be "truppen" instead of "truppe"? (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Polish Navy[edit]

I don't know much about military ranks, but I found the ranks in Polish Navy during II world war here: So I think there could be mistakes in this table in polish section of OF-1, OF-2 and OF-3. (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Kasia


Himmler's rank was equivalent to a Field Marshal in the German Army. Goring's rank was a special grade, held only by him. Now, in a "de facto" sense, given the fact Himmler was both Reichsführer-SS and chief of the German police (except the Orpo), one could argue he was the equivalent to Reichsmarshall, but with that said, officially, Himmler's SS rank on paper alone was equivalent to a Field Marshal in the German Army. Kierzek (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is rather difficult to find the position of Reichsführer-SS in comparison to the ranks of German armed forces. The SS once was a small unit of few men in the Nazi Party became a huge organization with millions of members. Only its military branch, Waffen-SS, became 38 divisions with many minor units, all subordinate to Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler.
At first SS was part of the Sturmabteilung (SA), main Nazi Party paramilitary group. Göring who later became the second most-powerful man in the Nazi Party, Hitler's political heir and commander-in-chief of the air force with rank of Reichsmarschall, was SA supreme leader (Oberster SA-Führer) in 1923. When Hitler took SA leadership in 1930, Oberster SA-Führer became a titular position and a junior rank of Stabschef was introduced for Ernest Röhm. Until Röhm's death in 1934, Stabschef SA gained authority over more than a million paramilitary troops far beyond the entire German army personnel. Since no one in the German army with the rank Generalfeldmarschall was on active duty then, Stabschef-SA can be considered to be equivalent to Generalfeldmarschall. Until 1934, when SS became independent from the SA, Reichsführer-SS was junior to SA Stabschef and therefore junior to Generalfeldmarschall. Since then, Reichsführer-SS became equivalent to the rank of Stabschef-SA. With the expansion of the SS organization and formation of the Waffen-SS several ranks equivalent to general ranks of the Wehrmacht was introduced. At the same time Himmler's position became more important as supreme leader of the SS, chief of police, and later minister of interior. In 1944, the rank of SS-Volksmarschall was planned for the Waffen-SS, equivalent to the rank of Generalfeldmarschall in the Wehrmacht ( Since all Waffen-SS were subordinate to Reichsführer-SS, it can be concluded that Himmler's rank had become superior to Generalfeldmarschall. Although Himmler's position became gradually important Göring remained the second most-powerful man in the Nazi Germany. Considering that Reichsmarschall and Reichsführer-SS were somehow special grades for Göring and Himmler rather than regular ranks in the German armed forces, the relation of these ranks is closely attached to the position of those who held it. Therefore it seems that Himmler's rank, Reichsführer-SS, was subordinate to that of Göring as also proposed in the German page on SS organization ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farshid k1 (talkcontribs) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
To briefly add to my points above; on paper the answer is easy; however, yes, it is difficult to gauge the position of Himmler as R-SS in a "de-facto" sense overtime because he became head of two very important positions in Nazi Germany; chief of the SS with its (in the end) huge umbrella and Chief of Police. The duties and offices became merged with Himmler and (as is noted in the R-SS article) it is hard to determine how much power would stand in each office alone if they had been separate; with a separate chief running each. "Much of his power and influence as Reichsführer-SS resided from control of the police, duties separate, yet linked." Kierzek (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of NATO code[edit]

The use of the NATO code in this context doesn't make any sense. They are comparative ranks and they should be compared to each other, only. NATO didn't exist in WWII. I propose removing that column. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your thinking and (having looked at the table code) if you can handle it, go for it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good thinking, Peacemaker67... and I thought you were "Not interested in that issue." --IIIraute (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I just like to keep discussions within clear parameters. It was clearly a red herring in that discussion, but I'm glad you brought it up. I should acknowledge John of Reading who unpicked the coding. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
No, it was not a "red herring" - I was simply putting emphasis on the absurdness of all this pseudo-academic pigeonholing.--IIIraute (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
We'll just have to disagree on that one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


Why are some of the ranks written in italics?--Uldra (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect hierarchy[edit]

The German hierarchy is presented incorrectly or at least confusingly – also with regard to the comparison with exterior ranks: Reichsführer-SS was the superior rank to the planned SS-Volksmarschall, thus both cannot be put in the same box. Also, Göring as the Reichsmarschall was not really superior to Himmler (Reichsführer-SS), but they were rather on the same sort of level – with different competences. The depiction here though is misleading. What do you think?--Uldra (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Inaccessible use of color[edit]

The use of colored text on this page is in contradiction of our accessibility guideline WP:COLOR and needs to be rethought.  — Scott talk 23:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)