Talk:Albert Kesselring/Archive 1

Holocaust Details

"At times, his flight path took him over the concentration camps at Oranienburg, Dachau, and Buchenwald.[22]" This sentence is featured in the "Between The Wars" portion of the article, which makes absolutely no sense from a temporal prospective. In addition, it's just sort of shoved in there: there's no other information on concentration camps or the Holocaust there or anywhere else in the article, and no other WWII info in that section. For these reasons I felt that the line was a poor one, and deleted it on 10 Feb.

My edit was reverted with the reason given that "There is a myth that people didn't know. Albert says he did." If that's the reason it was present, it's doing a terrible job. No offense to whomever wrote the original line, but I'm sure Kesselring flew over all sorts of places. How high were these flights (i.e. what did he see)? There's nothing in the article about Holocaust denial, or what Albert saw or said or anything else of use to that line of reasoning. This line about WWII events should either be moved somewhere besides a pre-WWII section and expanded to actually deal with what it's claimed it's supposed to, or (preferably) transferred to a page on Holocaust denial as evidence if it can be fleshed out. If nothing can be done, the line should be deleted in the interests of better writing.

I can't be bothered with edit wars, so I figured I'd come in and say my piece. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.197.29 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Birthdates

there are two differtent dates of birth in the article 195.158.119.176 20:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Corrected Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

When he was born?!
August 8 - bgwiki, cswiki, dawiki, eswiki, kowiki, iowiki, itwiki, jawiki, slwiki, fiwiki
November 13 - dewiki, frwiki, hewiki, huwiki, kawiki, nlwiki
November 20 - ruwiki
November 30 - enwiki, nowiki, plwiki, svwiki
~ Aleksandrit 11:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

30 November 1885. So enwiki is correct. The others will follow in due course. Hawkeye7 13:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you specify at authoritative reference? For example, November 20 (per ruwiki) confirmed by Great Soviet Encyclopedia... ~ Aleksandrit 18:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no definitive answer- many legitimate sources list his birthdate as 20 November or 30 November, so we should follow suit by using one source per date and leave it notated as most sources list his birthdate as either November 20th(source) or November 30th(source). Monsieurdl 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

but....

i dont thinks this is a relevant problem, this article is soo important but lack of information. please help me expanding it

Working on World War II service

Kesselring's war service is pretty bare bones before Italy, and I have to go through my library and add a lot more that is not here. He was heavily involved in both the Battle of Britain and the African campaign, and yet little is really here. Any help is appreciated! Monsieurdl 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The best source on Kesselring is his memoirs. This is particularly good for his Great War record. It also details his part in the reconstruction of the Luftwaffe between the wars. So start there. Apart from the bits that you mention that need expanding, a section on his role in Russia in 1941 would not go astray. The campaign against Malta deserves a mention. Kesselring's part in the North African Campaign is often overlooked in the lauding of Rommel and should be greatly expanded. In Italy, Rommel would have withdrawn to the northern Apennines; it was Kesselring who decided to fight the Allies as far south as possible, and who was responsible for the long and costly delaying action that saw the Allies take another year to reach this point. The comment about the loss of an army group in Tunisia requires explanation, and it should be pointed out that Monte Cassino Abbey was destroyed by Allied bombers. The bit about the final surrender in Italy should go, as Kesselring was not present. However, his role in the final campaign on the Western Front also needs expansion. Expand everything! The article on Kesselring should be no shorter and no less detailed than the one on Rommel. Kesselring would have wanted it that way. Hawkeye7 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have always wanted a copy of his book, but never got around to buying it. I HAD a book entitled "The German Army: 1933-1945", but I cannot find it. All sources that I have looked through so far (Shirer, A.J.P. Taylor, etc.) have been very brief when it came to Poland and the Battle of Britain with regards to Kesselring- it is mostly Goering, which is frustrating. I agree that this article should deservedly be the same as Rommel's- no problem there! Thanks a lot for your help! Monsieurdl 01:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My doing this is wasteful. Have a look at the article now and see if it rates B-class status. alas, it is still shorter that Rommel's entry. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I found my book, by the way, and also bought a 2007 reprint of Kesselring's autobiography. I think it would be very helpful if his words were compared to other generals (Guderian, Rommel, Goering, etc.) on various subjects so we can get an idea as to how he thought and how it compared to other viewpoints. This comparison would most certainly broaden the article, don't you think? Monsieurdl 16:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Parts of the article are, I'd say, simply astonishing, especially because they are taken by the Encyclopedia face value, and not referenced as the POV of their author (actually, most of the ones I am going to describe below are not referenced at all).

For example, in the War Crimes section it is stated that "Kesselring strove tirelessly to avoid the physical destruction of many artistically important Italian cities", which coincidentally is Albert Kesselring's own POV, as stated in a sort of "Address to the Italians" he gave at the time he was under trial accused for the innumerable massacres perpetrated by the Germans at the expenses of the life and property of innocent civilians.

The very same POV, resounds along the whole section, as it was sort of a teaser of his own book, Soldat bis zum letzten Tag: "Most notably, Kesselring tried to preserve the monastery of Monte Cassino, but was unsuccessful.", yet it sounds like it was an uninterested humanitarian endeavor as a whole and not, as it actually was, both a coup of propaganda and a tactical accident.

Furthermore, another clearly apologetic phrase left me speechless: "Kesselring attempted to save the Jews of Rome - as he had earlier saved those of Tunis - by employing them on the construction of fortifications", as if Kesselring was Mr. Schindler in Field Marshall uniform.

Moreover, the article cites the "massacres" perpetrated under Kesselring command and offers his POV on the issue, but fails entirely in offering the victims' POV and in describing their horrific magnitude.

Apologetic is not enough to describe this article, which seems more inclined - not only in the section mentioned above, but also elsewhere - to celebrate, rather than describe, its object: the whole article curiously fails to mention the fact that Kesselring was a staunch Nazi (which was not obvious as it could seem, as many German Generals during WWII were not) and that it was one of the most loyal to Hitler, to the point that he tried to prevent Generals Karl Wolff (SS) and Heinrich von Vietinghoff (Army) from signing an armistice whit Harold Alexander till the morning of May 2nd 1945, that is even after Hitler had killed himself, and while the German Armies on the Southern Front were facing total destruction by the rapid Allied advance. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to forget that Kesselring was a man who believed in a soldiers honor, and to do anything to compromise that would go totally against that. Goering and Kesselring were good friends, and the affiliation with the Nazi Party could easily be explained by such influences- I cannot figure out why you could say he was a staunch Nazi like Skorzeny or Himmler- a soldier is a soldier.

As for the partisans issue, he was following orders as an officer in charge and as the evidence states, followed the order by not drawing from any civilians, but civilians that were prisoners or who warranted such action. Partisans engaged in the systematic killing of others and did not deserve preferential treatment- in other words, they had blood on their hands as well. Look at this:

In presenting the Prosecution’s case on the first charge the Prosecutor conceded that the German authorities were justified in imposing reprisals after the bombing attack in Rosella Street. After quoting some authorities on the subject (They are fully set out on pp. 3-7 of this volume.), he pointed out that whereas there was authority for destruction of property and incarceration of nationals of occupied territory as reprisals, there was no authority for the taking of human life. The defence argued that in extreme circumstances the taking of human life in the course of reprisals was permissible.

[1]

In the end, Kesselring's sentence was commuted, and rightly so. He was no monster, no cold and calculated murderer- he was a soldier, and the facts bear it as such. If you would like to make it balanced by adding the "victims", then their actions as partisans should be duly noted as well. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, your personal views, which seem to me - so to speak - quite apologetic about Kesserling and somehow inclined to condone Nazi crimes of war and against Humanity, while showing an attitude nearing contempt about the Partisans and the civilians victims, clearly have no interest here.

Therefore, let's get back to the goals we must meet here: an article such as this cannot advocate - as you seem to wish - a single point of view, so we can surely describe Kesselring as he described himself (which in fact is what the article presently does), but we must, as well, represent the other relevant points of view accurately and with at least same dignity, and provide context. There's not a single point of view - and certainly not in this case and on such matter - that can be sold here as "the truth" or "the best view".

There are many Generals and soldiers who, while serving their Country with both honor and devotion, did not compromise themselves with the Nazi regime as Kesselring did. Some notable Generals and officers risked - or even lost - their lives plotting against Hitler (like Kluge and Rommel) and others, who fought during the whole war - bravely and effectively till the very last day - while hoping in the secret of their hearts to be defeated for the sake of Humanity, like General Frido von Senger und Etterlin.

"Goering and Kesselring were good friends", no doubt, and this shall be mentioned, but sorry, it's kinda childish to pretend to explain as such his affiliation with the Nazi Party, like Kesselring was a little boy taken away from the right way - without his consent and almost against his will - by his "bad" friend. Kesselring may have been not Himmler, but, among German top Generals, he surely was one of the most faithful to Hitler's Nazi regime, and this - being without any doubt a fact and a very relevant one - should be noted starting from the incipit of the article.

About the wanton massacres - not always "simple" reprisals, we are talking about literally thousands of innocent hostages assassinated, including children, women and elder people, not fighters who "had blood on their hands" - your vision about their "legality" can be easily challenged - and will be - with hard facts and sources, but for now let's say that a soldier who is a soldier doesn't make a butcher of himself (looking for excuses afterwards), even when facing true "monsters".

By the way, Kesselring's sentence was commuted, as well as has happened in (too) many other cases like his, once the western Allies resolved that they needed a strong Western Germany in order to face the Soviet threat in the European theater during the Cold War; They realized that such goal could be best achieved by enlisting all Germans in the effort, even those who could be rallied by a Nazi like Kesselring, while others, like the nazi criminal Theo Saeveke, were given full cover and impunity and were put in key places in the German Government. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no personal vendetta against those who fought Germans, believe me- let's get that straight first off. You spoke of being fair and presenting more that one POV, and that is what I am doing- to counter the very idea that Kesselring and the German Army at that time were all BAD and the partisans were all GOOD. That to me ignores the realities of the war.

Kesselring did not face the choice of gassing innocent civilians as butchers of the east who gleefully did it, or herding them around and shipping them in horrific ways like those who were in charge of "labor", i.e. slavery, or even those who took civilians and burned them alive in a locked building. He was responding to a threat by a hostile population, and did not just scoop up a large amount of civilians and order them to be executed (i.e. the Heydrich reprisal), no matter what you might say. That is not defending crimes against humanity- that is showing that as far as standards go, Kesselring by no means stooped to the level of others in the regime.

Kesselring followed orders- in the ranks of the German Army, there was no room for rejecting orders in the professional army. There was no "lawful order" clause as there is today, no loophole or "out" that enabled Kesselring to do anything but do what he did. To say that he could have ignores as I said before the honor in being a soldier and the duty involved. It is far too easy to come down on Kesselring if the understanding of what being a military man was then is lacking. Only the victors in this case decided who was guilty of war crimes- there was no such trial for those who committed them on the winning side. Where is the balance there? Where is the outrage and the calling for facts to be presented? Until you present to me absolute facts that Kesselring ordered women and children to be shot (not it happened, or his juniors did), then the very mention of them is irrelevant with respect to Kesselring himself.

I commented about this because revisionist history of the 20th century is getting very much out of hand, and moments in time are incorrectly being judged by a different time's standard. That is my whole problem here.Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree total with Monsieurdl: Montesacro's points of view are ridiculous and nonsense!!!! A lot of Italian communist partisans were criminals more dangerous than nazis!!!!--PIO (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you the same user Pio with this wonderful curriculum on it.wiki? --KS«...» 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanna, tu e Montesacro fate notevoli danni a questo progetto!!!! Siete politicamente militanti nelle vostre elugubrazioni quindi meritate la messa al bando!!!! Il mio curriculum lo vedi dove stanno i miei contributi non dove stanno le decisioni di amministratori ignoranti che infestano questo sito bandendo chi non è della loro schifosissima fazione politica comunista o comunistoide!!!!--PIO (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Myths and Facts

To Monsieurdl: AFAIK this article is about Albert Kesserling's article, not a forum to discuss whether "Kesselring and the German Army at that time were all BAD and the partisans were all GOOD".

(Partisans were not all good, of course, and so? Does, under any circumstances, a criminal behaviour justify in itself another, taken apart the immediate self-defense? Is a soldier called to transform himself in a cold-blooded butcher in order to face a butcher? And, in such case, where is the difference between the two? And how to establish a standard about who's a butcher? The clothing?)

BTW, I have already shown you several examples of top German Generals that are quite unanimously considered (including their colleagues and opponents among the Allies) as good soldiers and good Generals and yet were definitely not Nazi and opposed the Nazi regime, like Frido von Senger und Etterlin and Ernst-Günther Baade, and even till the sacrifice of their own lives, like Erwin Rommel and Günther von Kluge, just to name a few.

If your entirely inaccurate and unilateral take about being a "good and honorable soldier" - according to which being such consisted only in blindly following orders and showing loyality to the Commander in Chief (Hitler in this case) till the very end - then we shall conclude that Rommel, Kluge, Senger, Baade and innumerable other Generals and soldiers faithfully serving their Country - rather the bunch of Nazi criminals who dominated Germany and inflicted monumental damage to the whole world and their own Nation - were dishonoured men and soldiers - if not traitors - who deserved both a shameful death and historic record, which is obviously not accepted by any serious historical text.

• Myth: Kesselring followed orders- in the ranks of the German Army, there was no room for rejecting orders in the professional army.
• Fact: The records of the trials celebrated in Italy about the Ardeatine Massacre show without any doubt that - even in a case such as this - several German officers and soldiers could refuse to perform orders without facing any consequence. Both the SS major Herbert Kappler and the General Kurt Maltzer (city commander) were present when the commander of the German unit that had been hit at via Rasella by a deadly partisan attack refused to command the firing squad for the reprisal and, after the refusal opposed also by a Wehrmacht colonel, it was Kappler who offered himself to do the job, during which several German refused to fire, and none of them - including the two aforementioned commanders faced any consequence (about this see for example Robert Katz, The Battle for Rome : The Germans, the Allies, the Partisans, and the Pope, September 1943-June 1944, Simon & Schuster, NY, 2003, ISBN 0-7432-1642-3, as reported on page 406 in the Italian edition.). Furthermore, there are innumerable other cases in which orders were refused or worked around, without any serious consequences or no consequences at all. As for the "Kesselring followed orders" excuse, the Nuremberg Verdict addressed it specifically:

Many of these men have made a mockery of the soldier's oath of obedience to military orders. When it suits their defense they say they had to obey; when confronted with Hitler's brutal crimes . . . they say the disobeyed. The truth is that they actively participated in all these crimes, or sat silent and acquiescent, witnessing the commission of crimes on a scale larger and more shocking than the world has ever had the misfortune to know. This must be said.

— Nuremberg Verdict

Kesselring makes no difference. When it suits to his defense, he claims that he had to obey; meanwhile, he says (or implies) he has disobeyed when he deems convenient posing as the savior of the jews or the cultural and artistic heritage.

• Myth: Kesselring did not face the choice of gassing innocent civilians as butchers of the east who gleefully did it, or herding them around and shipping them in horrific ways like those who were in charge of "labor", i.e. slavery, or even those who took civilians and burned them alive in a locked building.
• Fact: the article is currently claiming that "Kesselring attempted to save the Jews of Rome - as he had earlier saved those of Tunis - by employing them on the construction of fortifications". In fact, tens of thousands of Italians - not only Italian Jews - were forced into slavery both in Italy (for building fortifications and restoring infrastructure useful to the German war effort) and in Germany (to support the war production), where they were shipped and kept often in horrific ways (and in some cases exterminated for futile reasons). Furthermore, there were several cases in which entire Italian villages were encircled by the Kesselring men and their civilian residents were burned alive in the locked buildings, to the point that even Mussolini issued a protest to the German Ambassador Rahn on September, 15th 1944 in which he denounced the "blind reprisals" based on the orders of Kesselring, and naming him specifically asking why the orders by the very same Field Marshal issued on August 22nd 1944 (to use restraint in the perming reprisals) were being not implemented. These were issued under pressure by the fascist government in response to the intolerable level of the massacres performed by the Germans based on the orders Kesselring had issued on June 17th, 1944 and July ,1st of the same year, and was also based on them that Kesselring was later sentenced to death by a British Tribunal.

• Myth: Rome "Open City". Successive, unilateral declarations of Rome as an "open city", made at first by the Italian government on August, 14th 1943, and then by the Germans after they had occupied the Italian capital on September, 10th of the same year - not talking about the often inaccurate use and re-use of the concept in movies and literature - popularized the misconception that these declarations had a real value and legal force and that had been observed and respected by the parties.

• Additional Myth: Kesselring played a key-role in protecting the city from destruction, and obtained "open city" status for Rome to this end.

• Fact: There was never an agreement between the parties about Rome as an "open city", despite the intense diplomatic efforts by the Vatican - also as a mediator between the opponents - in order to bring the parties to such an effective agreement.

• Additional Fact: Kesselring declared the whole city "war zone" starting from January, 22nd, 1944: thus it remained, till the arrival of the Allies, so much for the "open city".

In fact, the Allies bombed Rome 51 times between September, 8th 1943 and June, 4th 1944, when the city was liberated by Clark's Fifth U.S. Army.

The bombings continued till the the city evacuation by the Germans, causing widespread destruction and the death of more than 7,000 civilians. The numerous, repeated and deadly air raids - justified by the Allies with the fact that the Germans, despite their rhetorical declarations of Rome as an open city, still used the city infrastructure and facilities as part of their logistic effort aimed at supporting their front line - are the best and sound proof that, in Rome, the "open city" status was actually never implemented.

About the same can be said regarding Florence, where the Germans under Kesselring destroyed all the city bridges - including some of artistic value - but Ponte Vecchio, demolishing a large amount of historical buildings at its two ends instead, in order to prevent the Allies to use the bridge to cross the river Arno. And, a battle was fought within Florence: so much for the pretended "protection" of Italian cities of relevant artistic importance.

In conclusion, the open city status was never in effect in Rome (and Florence) and the one thing the "open city" concept was for sure is that it was a very useful tool of propaganda (and, to this end, a quite effective one) and political tool that the Germans and Kesselring cynically used (and rightfully so, from their point of view) to their advantage, in order to put under decisional stress the Allies, aiming to relieve the pressure imposed on their logistical infrastructure by the Allied Air Force.

Note: Just in case, among several relevant documents available at the National Archives of the United Kingdom, all of which clarify beyond any doubt that the "open city" status was never operative in Rome, it is of most interest the folder 8/439, which contains a number of filed documents about the Allied policy towards Rome. The file n. 400 is a message sent to the Foreign Office by D'Arcy Osborne, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Holy See, in which he transmits the latest German proposal for declaring Rome "open city", relayed to him by the German Ambassador in Rome, via the Vatican Undersecretary of State; the message was then urgently retransmitted to Washington, and it's dated June, 4th 1944, the very same day Clark's tanks entered Rome. Till the very last minute, the Germans had used Rome and the diplomatic delusion of the never ending talks about the "open city" in order to take any possible advantage out of it, including using the Italian Capital to cover their ordered retreat behind a safer defense line. A large collection of the files in the folder 8/439 is available in Italian translation in Umberto Gentiloni Silveri, Maddalena Carli, "Bombardare Roma - Gli Alleati e la «città aperta» (1940-1944) - Il Mulino - Biblioteca storica, Bologna, 2007, ISBN 978-88-15-11546-1.

As for your call for facts to be presented, it does not belong here: we are not a Tribunal. We are called - at most - to cite Tribunals, and Kesselring was convicted as a war criminal by a Tribunal, as much as his associate Göring was. It is not our duty to develop here a debate about concepts such as the "victor law", or the like.

As for the most current historical assessment about Kesselring, I am going to add to the article a rough translation from the German Wikipedia, which is very interesting in pointing out how political contingency (the Cold War) - not Justice - was at the base of Kesselring "rehabilitation" and liberation under pretext of an illness that apparently did not kill him. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

---

• Kesselring followed orders- in the ranks of the German Army, there was no room for rejecting orders in the professional army.
• This is wrong. The article is correct: "Kesselring did not invoke the "Nuremburg defence". Rather, he maintained that his actions were legal. The court was forced to concede Kesselring's actions were legal". This included the taking of hostages and executions in reprisals, which were legal under the international law of the day. The article clearly states that Kesselring was not convicted on the grounds of following illegal orders, nor of the illegality of the orders that he issued but on the grounds that these were exceeded by some of his subordinates, who may have been encouraged to do so by the tone of his orders. The article also contains a link to the trial transcript.

• The article is currently claiming that "Kesselring attempted to save the Jews of Rome - as he had earlier saved those of Tunis - by employing them on the construction of fortifications". In fact, tens of thousands of Italians - not only Italian Jews - were forced into slavery both in Italy (for building fortifications and restoring infrastructure useful to the German war effort) and in Germany (to support the war production), where they were shipped and kept often in horrific ways.
• The article is correct. This point is referenced in the article. Some 7,400 Italian Jews are believed to have been killed by the Nazis.

• Rome "Open City". Successive, unilateral declarations of Rome as an "open city", made at first by the Italian government on August, 14th 1943, and then by the Germans after they had occupied the Italian capital on September, 10th of the same year. Kesselring declared the whole city "war zone" starting from January, 22nd, 1944: thus it remained, till the arrival of the Allies, so much for the "open city".
• The article is correct. Perhaps the concept of an "open city" is not widely understood. It simply means that it will not be defended. The city remains occupied and can be used by the occupier. The Allies did not wish to accept this, because Rome was a major transportation hub, and they did not wish to forego the option of bombing it - which is fair enough. Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with declaring a city open unilaterally - as General MacArthur did in Manilla in 1942.

• Political contingency (the Cold War) - not Justice - was at the base of Kesselring "rehabilitation" and liberation under pretext of an illness that apparently did not kill him
• The article is correct. Ill health was the stated reason for his release.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Kesselring, the savior of Roman Jews: an unmodest proposal...

To Hawkeye7:

• "Kesselring did not invoke the "Nuremburg defence". Rather, he maintained that his actions were legal. The court was forced to concede Kesselring's actions were legal". This included the taking of hostages and executions in reprisals, which were legal under the international law of the day. The article clearly states that Kesselring was not convicted on the grounds of following illegal orders, nor of the illegality of the orders that he issued but on the grounds that these were exceeded by some of his subordinates, who may have been encouraged to do so by the tone of his orders. The article also contains a link to the trial transcript.

Sorry but, at the moment, I was unable to find the link to the trial transcript: could you please be so kind to include a copy of the URL here? TIA.

Anyway, this document clearly states that Kesselring was found guilty on both charges and sentenced to death.

The legality of the orders he followed is far from being widely accepted and, for sure, is at least disputable, even in historical perspective, as for example shown here. In any event, we must provide not only accurate data, but also context, which the article lacks to this respect, at least.

The article clearly states the reasons why the court found him guilty, and that he was sentenced to death. Perhaps a few more words are in order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Again, as I asked above, could you please be so kind to include a copy of the URL to the transcript trial transcript here? I haven't found it in the article. Thank you. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article is correct. This point is referenced in the article. Some 7,400 Italian Jews are believed to have been killed by the Nazis.

The article references may be correct, but some parts are bizarre: based on the reference from the Emory Univ. you provided (http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/trial/judgement/05.018.2), one can argue that, according to David Irving, Hitler was willing to save the Roman Jews by holding them as hostages, according to the article, Kesselring was willing to save the Roman Jews by way of forcing them into slavery (sic!), and that Heinrich Himmler was willing to save them by liquidating them quickly in order to spare them the agony either Hitler or Kesselring wanted to impose upon them!

Seriously speaking, I find outrageous - and I suspect that I am not alone - accepting face value the idea that Kesselring actual intention was to protect the Jews (which, without context, amounts to naively suggest that he was some sort of Mr. Schindler in Field Marshal uniform), where it is more than obvious that Kesselring - as the good planner he was (and no one is disputing this) - quickly realized the political situation in Italy and in particular in Rome, also due to the presence of the Vatican (which was an active - maybe the most active at the time - hub of diplomacy in Europe), and concluded that taking hold of the Jews gave him a political asset he couldn't spend were they given away, besides the obvious fact that the Jews were the slave labor force more readily available in the area, and he needed as much as possible slave labor force, given the magnitude of the logistical challenges he was facing.

Kesselring was no politician and rarely grasped the political situation. He remained confident that Italy would remain in the war on the German side long after Hitler and OKW were convinced that it would not. His belief that the Italian people would laud him is remains the most ludicrous example. His need for labour was obvious but not so great as he claimed; nor was the transportation situation as quite as critical as he protested. (And why was the rest of the local Italian civilian population not available as a slave labour force?) I kind of like your wording here. I will add a few more words. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that saying that Kesselring always claimed to be not a politician would be more fair and accurate. In fact, he was a very close associate of the politician nr. 2 of the Nazi regime, Hermann Göring, as well as one of the very few top Generals who had direct access to nr. 1, the Führer; furthermore he was de facto the top commander in Italy, having even the SS head for the sector, Karl Wolff, under him.

Kesselring constant claim as a witness and as a defendant before the Courts after the war that he constantly was "only after his own business" may be understandable under his point of view, but are far from being the universally accepted historical version, and with reason, since he not only issued orders with force of Law and administered Justice in Italy, but also had to adjust the German position in relation to the Vatican and Mussolini's puppet government almost daily, by way of the German diplomacy, of course, but having the final word on almost any matter.

Therefore, he was for sure in strict contact with the top politicians of his Country (inspiring even in his own Germany clearly political decisions such as the catastrophic and inhumane evacuation of the civilian population of the Saar region), and was called to act politically in essence at least since he replaced Rommel.

That said, we might evaluate - or not - if he was or not a good politician as much as he was a good military planner and General, but cannot exclude he acted politically simply because he said so. And he assumed a clearly political role, even if not a parliamentary one, as soon as he was freed: besides, in his own memories he affirms it was his intention to help his Country out the rut, which given the circumstances had to refer to some sort of political engagement.

Back to your question: Rome citizens were more hostile to the German occupation than in other parts of Italy. Recently released records by the Allies counterintelligence show that no other city in Italy like Rome was so resilient to both the calls to enlist in the newly formed Fascist Republican armed forces or with the Todt and the like to go working in the German war industry. The two calls were in competition, and new puppet Fascist Regime opposed almost constantly - albeit with scarce success - forcing the Italians as a labor force, calling for the creation of Fascist Republican Army instead. The puppet fascist regime, of course, did not care as well of the fate of Italian Jews, so their usage as a labor force would be the less inconvenient choice for Kesselring, also given that Rome's Jew community happened to be bigger one in Italy, thus it was the "more readily available" as I had stated above. And what I said shows how Kesselring was called to choices which were political in essence (even taking apart the relationship with the Vatican just for a moment, and it should be added that the salvaging of Montecassino Library and removable Art pieces was another coup of propaganda which clearly shows how a good politician he was). --Piero Montesacro (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article is correct. Perhaps the concept of an "open city" is not widely understood. It simply means that it will not be defended. The city remains occupied and can be used by the occupier. The Allies did not wish to accept this, because Rome was a major transportation hub, and they did not wish to forego the option of bombing it - which is fair enough. Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with declaring a city open unilaterally - as General MacArthur did in Manilla in 1942.

Context, again, context. I understand the concept of "open city" and you too, I'm sure. But we are here talking to the rest of the world here, thus we got to get rid of any misconception connected to such concept, including demystify the idea that unilateral declarations of "open city" had more effect and significance than they actually had, and clarify their importance as propaganda tools.

Anyway, the Allies always held that the concept of "open city" included the effective demilitarization of the city - i.e. it could be not used as logistical hub for the army - and not only that there should be not armed opposition towards the entry of the enemy army in the city.

The relevant fact, i.e. what has actually happened, and what come into effect, is that Kesselring declared Rome "war zone" since January, 22nd, 1944, and so it remained till the arrive of Clark's Army. Why—oh, Why? the article makes no mention of this? Sounds too bad for an apology?

The Allies wanted much more than that. They felt that the city remained a valid military target so long as government and industry remained in the city.

Kesselring's declaration of a war zone followed the Allied landing at Anzio, when he expected that the Allies would be entering the city momentarily. This did not alter the city's "undefended" status. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As above: the "open city" declarations were - at most - tools of propaganda. Formally, the city's "undefended" status was never recognized by any party - except the proponent - and, substantially, was never implemented - except on June 4th, 1944, the day Clark's Army entered the city at its southern end, while strong parties of German snipers sent south that morning across the Tiber bridges (for the first time in daylight) were holding back several Allied motorized columns in order to protect the German retreat under course from the northern end of the city.

Fact is that the city was never actually "undefended" till the very moment the Germans decided to abandon it - yes - (almost) without fighting. Besides, as you correctly pointed out, the city was proclaimed to be "war zone" - which blatantly exposes the concurrent "open city" legend for what it was - in consequence of the Anzio landing, just a couple dozen miles south of Rome. Every night and for the entire period of the occupation Rome was crossed by German columns replenishing both the front at Anzio and Cassino (in order to avoid daylight precision bombardments). These columns were attacked almost every night by partisans, as testified, among others, even by Erich Priebke, and reported by several sources, including the well known Robert Katz's monography about the Nazi occupation of Rome. Furthermore, the vehicles were usually parked in the most central squares of the historical parts of the city during the day, in the hope that the Allied fighters would not strafe them to avoid the accuse of destroying important monuments. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article is correct. Ill health was the stated reason for his release.

And yes, WWI was started just because of Gavrilo Princip!

So much for context and historiography!

I understand that you can appreciate - and even admire - Kesselring's military skills, and it wouldn't hurt me if you privately shared the same views Joseph McCarthy had about pardoning and rehabilitating Nazi war criminals for the sake of anti-communism at the height of the Cold War, but it's a fact that Kesselring was not so ill to need quick release if he survived another eight years, as well as it's a fact that he was released precisely in the middle of a massive political and press campaign aimed at pardoning and rehabilitating Nazi war criminals in general, in Germany and elsewhere. And it's a hard fact as well that he rallied many Nazi around him and never repented, bringing his loyalty to Adolf Hitler's and the Nazi regime till his last day, 1960. Again, something too much inconvenient - although perfectly true - to be written in an articleapology, isn't? --Piero Montesacro (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The extra text you added resolves this. NB: I have never advocated the pardoning of war criminals. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OT

Problem is this: war criminals were among Russian, Yugoslav, German, Italian and all others chiefs of armies but only criminals of defeated armies were punished, when non murdered in mass killing by criminals of winner armies. Joseph Stalin, Josip Broz and a lot of European communist partisans were more criminals than nazis but they were unpunished because winner criminals!--PIO (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the Talk page about Albert Kesselring. General discussions and rants about other subjects, as well as personal opinions about the "winner justice" concept, do not belong here, sorry. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Montesacro, my comment is pertinent Kesselring and punishers who were non neutral persons but figures of winner nations after WW2. A personal opinion total out of point by Italian user KS is readable above: you can advice him non me!!!!--PIO (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with any of us you should go to the users' talks in order to discuss it properly. Again, your opinions about the "winner justice" concept should be posted elsewhere, and certainly not in this particular talk. Please stop ranting here, otherwise I shall report you to an admin. Thank you. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are in error: stop it!!!! I shall report you to an admin too if you insist.--PIO (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed quote

Hawkeye7, could you please be so kind to explain why you removed the quote about Göring and Htiler having clean hands, according to Kesselring? It has a quite authoritative source. Thank you in advance. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. I hope you can help as well with the section about the Battle of England. It needs quite a Help, IMHO. P.P.S. Thanks for fixing my English, which, as you might have noticed, is not my mother tongue. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote comes from the part of his book dealing with the "Night of the Long Knives". Kesselring makes it clear in this passage that he believed Göring at the time, but soon found out otherwise. I didn't want people to read it literally and think that Kesselring was one of those Germans who wilfully refused to acknowledge what was going on. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK about this particular quote. But he actually was one of those Germans who wilfully refused to acknowledge what was going on, and did not change his mind even after the war. I shall provide you some more evidence about. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edward Crasemann

Piero, could you chase up the case of Edward Crasemann for me ? Where the incident with the 26th Panzer Division took place? I think it is important as an example of a war crime committed by the Wehrmacht, rather than the SS and Luftwaffe. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. He was sentenced to 10 years related to the "Padule di Fucecchio" (Marsch of Fucecchio) atrocity, perpetrated on August 23, 1944: 175 civilians, 1 (one) of whom proved to be a partisan, were exterminated. 62 of the victims were women, the younger was 5 months old, the elder was 93. 14 victims were toddler younger than 14. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The entirely baseless Myth of the "I was following orders" defence

Even though Kesselring did not entirely invoke the "I was following order" aka "Nuremberg" defence, it might be worth to mention why such kind of excuse has no base whatsoever, and how it does not stand accurate scrutiny also in the case of Second World War German officers.

• Myth: "Kesselring followed orders - in the ranks of the German Army, there was no room for rejecting orders".

• Fact: "Without an unquestioning attitude towards obeying orders, the successful conduct of military operations, the success of a military campaign, and even the survival of a nation would be seriously threatened. Yet, the soldier, and especially the officer, also has a legal obligation to disobey orders that violate the constitution or the law, and has a moral and ethical obligation to disobey orders that are contrary to societal norms. Thus, the soldier's requirement to obey orders is not open-ended,and the oath of loyalty is not an excuse for blind patriotism or blind obedience to orders, the infamous "I was following orders" defense. Even within the German Military tradition, such a defense is not legally permissable, despite its use by the defendants at the Nuremberg war crimes tralis (as well as at other war crimes trials). Article 47 of the 1872 German Military Penal Code, still legally in force, if not unenforced, down to 1945, stated:

If execution of an order given in line of duty violates a statute of the penal code, the superior giving the order is alone responsible. However, the subordinate, obeying the order is liable to punishment as an accomplice if ... he knew that the order involved an act the commission of which constituted a civil or military crime or offense.

Ironically, even Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, reiterated the essence of Article 47 and refuted the "I was only following orders" defense ina May 28, 1944 article in the Germa newspaper Deutsche Allgemeine. As we shall see later, there is precedence within the Prusso-German military tradition for disobedience to orders.

The oath is not an excuse which the soldier can use to justify immoral acts after the fact, as we saw it used by numerous former German military officers during the various war crime trials that followed World War II or by the defendants in the My Lai massacre trial in 1971."

Note: emphasized text is from the original.

Source: Robert B. Kane, Disobedience and Conspiracy in the German Army, 1918-1945, McFarland, 2001, ISBN 0-7864-1104-X, p. 15.

---

--Piero Montesacro (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced text

I have provisionally removed the following snippets from the article, after they had been unlinked from their previous stated source - which apparently was Kesselring's memories - and passed to be unreferenced, and assumed as the Encyclopedia version of the matter. They can be added again if given due, accurate and punctual reference, of course.

• The court conceded that the taking of hostages and even the execution of innocent people in reprisals - sanctioned by the US Army's Rules of Land Warfare - could be permissible under the international law of the day. Nonetheless, the court felt that Kesselring had created a climate in which some of his subordinates felt entitled to exceed their orders.
• International law was subsequently strengthened in this regard.

It may be interesting to note that the trial against Kesselring was held based on the Royal Warrant of June 18 1945, thus is essentially under British Common Military Law, and not under the Charter proposed for Nuremberg Trials. It is - so to speak - unlikely that British Common Military Law in itself relied upon US Army's Rules, and that the International law was strengthened expressly based on Kesselring' trial. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is common in English speaking countries for laws of one country to be cited in court cases in another. In any case, the British Army also permitted the taking of hostages.

The second statement is an error on my part. The taking of hostages was expressly prohibited by Article 3 the Geneva Convention of 1949. All I meant to say was that international law was subsequently changed in this regard. I didn't mean to imply that it was as specifically a result of the Kesselring case or that Kesselring claimed otherwise. Perhaps words to this effect could be added after "The court left open the theoretical and abstract question on the legality of killing of innocent persons as a reprisal." But the article seems to read fine as it is.

In turn removed this snippet:

"A close friend and associate to Hermann Göring (and, like him, a onetime drug addict), Kesselring never denied or disowned his ruthless conduction of the war, proud as he was, even after the war, for the bombings of the almost undefended Warsaw, the airborne destruction of Rotterdam after the city had surrendered already and the most infamous carpet-bombing on Coventry, and excused himself for any excess routinely calling for the "military necessity."

It's referenced to a TIME magazine article but almost every part is factually incorrect: Kesselring was not a close friend of Göring (the two were not of the same social class); he was not a drug addict (although Göring was); Warsaw was not undefended; the raid on Rotterdam did not occur after the city surrendered; and Kesselring's Luftflotte was not involved in the raid on Coventry. The only part that is accurate is the last phrase. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I know the basics of Common law and, in general, I agree about your opinion above. However, what you say can be common but is not granted. Therefore, once a the reference supporting the text had gone, I went here to check the situation and ask for a clarification and a new reference, and this was my actual point here. Which seems to be unnecessary, after all, as I am glad to see that you agreed that the article seems to read fine as it is. Hence, sounds like no further action is needed about the issue.

About the info based on TIME magazine. I suspend judgment about the drug issue: I have checked and the source seems to be pretty isolated. Same for Warsaw. As per the other issues, however, it might be your turn in be willing to check again. The Rotterdam Blitz occurred, at most, while the city was in the process of surrendering and, for sure, when it was quite clear that it was hopeless anyway: it might suffice to clarify well that Student was on the ground, and called for the bombing anyway, but failed in calling it off - which is true - while Kesselring was merely at the command of the bombing; the readers will be served with all they need to take their own conclusions, which is our actual aim here. And yes, Kesselring was fully involved in Coventry bombing, by his own frank admission (the same link also includes Kesselring statements about Rotterdam, and Warsaw). No problem on the last phrase, once you agree as you do. Therefore, I think parts of the text you have removed can be saved. I am quite confident that an agreement between us about putting back some parts of the text referenced by TIME and removed. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Moscow Declaration

I can understand why Italy would be specifically mentioned so as to remove doubt about its status. But none of the atrocities cited in the article occurred before October 1943. Is there something missing? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is. Please give me some time to provide it. Thank you. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that, by now, I have already added enough information and context within the article to show why it is relevant. It might be added that it was mainly based on such Declaration, drafted by Churchill, that the British planned their trials against the war criminals - being Kesselring the most prominent one - and that it was the same Churchill who forced the commuting of the death sentences to prison and, eventually, the pardon of the culprits, thus dismantling the very policy he had initially promoted, and based on which Kesselring had been dragged before a Court. A similar policy was adopted by Italy: Kesserling was wanted by an Italian Military Tribunal for the Massacre of Roccaraso perpetrated on November 12 1943, in which 173 civilians (including 53 women, 34 toddlers less than 10 years old and 22 elderly people) were killed. The findings were "provisionally archived" (an unlawful procedure) and hidden along with the ones related to 695 enquiries regarding over 2,000 German and Italian criminals, to be rediscovered only in 1994, due to a search related to the Erich Priebke trial. The British War Crime Group in Padua had concluded an inquiry on November 9 1947 on the same Roccaraso massacre, but took no action. References: Donald Bloxham, Genocide on Trial - War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 47 ISBN 0-19-925904-6.(in Italian) Franco Giustolisi, L'Armadio della Vergogna, Nutrimenti Srl, Roma, 2004, ISBN 88-88389-18-0 and (in Italian) Mimmo Franzinelli, Le Stragi Nascoste - L'armadio della vergogna: impunità e rimozione dei crimini di guerra nazifascisti 1943-2001, Mondadori, Milano, 2002, ISBN 88-04-51974-6. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Churchill reassuring Stalin

To Hawkeye7: it would be nice if you could add a reference to support the text according which Churchill "had made it clear to Stalin at the time that executions were not what he had in mind" (which I am sure you can do), and give your opinion, on second thought, about its opportunity. In fact, the Russians did not hesitate to put to death several war criminals in their hands, and the US, until they joined the Churchill stance about liquidating the war criminal issue, did not refrain from executing, for example, General Anton Dostler. But what makes me think twice is also the fact that the British had at least one General tried and executed as a war criminal: it was not a German one though, but the Italian General Nicola Bellomo, who has been rehabilitated since 1966 by Peter Tompkins in his Italy Betrayed. Bellomo had successfully fought against the Germans, beating them and preventing the capture of Bari and was an anti-fascist; Stalin must have been not too amused. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, I will provide a citation. You are quite right that attitudes towards the death penalty differed between the UK and its American and Soviet allies. I wanted to avoid giving the impression that Churchill had done a back flip.

Can you provide the citation for the additional persons at his funeral?

I like the bit about Harold Alexander. I must query the bit about "knowing none of the details of the crimes in question". He was, after all, in command at the time the charges were drafted. It seems that German field marshals were not the only ones with memory problems.

I was also wondering if "Critical assessment of Kesselring's pardon in Germany" should be merged with "Death penalty commutation, early pardon, and liberation"?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have provided the needed citation about the personalities that were at the funeral.

Yes, I seem to share your view: as the quite cynical and (thus) very good politician he was, Churchill probably had in mind to use the Moscow Declaration (mainly) as a lever in order to put pressure over the Nazi's more than he was prepared to put all of them to death indeed. Nevertheless, he actually back flipped, and it's certainly not me to state this, but the sources I cited. Much of course, I also share what you say about amnesia being not only a German illness. As you can see in the previous section of this discussion, I have provided an Italian example, and it might be added to the article.

I am not sure about the merging you propose, as it seems to me both relevant and interesting the take the Germans themselves have in particular on the issue. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"von" Kesselring

From some quarter or other there has been a notion in the US that Kesselring was a von (ie nobility, as opposed to the Generalfeldmarschall's actual humble origins). His name was Albert Kesselring. Somehow a mistake appears to have crept in. (History doesn't repeat itself, but historians do.) Why not ask the Generalfeldmarschall himself? or here? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Two things: First, it looks like Albert is correct, but as I don't have copies of the texts you refer to (and my review of them hasn't answered this question) are you certain that is his given name, was it changed when he got older or perhaps that is even his name given in translation into English? It's not unusual for people of that period to "modernize" their names at some point.... Second, given the confusion regarding his first name, it might be sensible to include a bit of text describing the situation in the body of the article. Geeman (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My first thought was that Albert was an Anglicised form. So when English became problematic I turned to German sources, which confirm Albert. So I now know that he was using Albert during WWII. So it looks like the reverse is the case: that Albrecht is a Germanised form.

I'll add an explanatory note once I am certain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I send an email to Dr von Lingen, and received the following reply:

"Albert" ist the right form, "Albrecht" is another name. Unfortunately, in english sources you find a lot of misspellings, due to the haste at registration time and the high number of prisoners. You may also come across "Albrecht von Kesselring" which is completely wrong.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical Assessment of Kesselring

Whoever wrote this section has used references to embolden their original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. For example, if an article on Kesselring includes him saving art treasures and such, you just can't add sentences saying how they left off X and Y and Z, and then use a decidedly negative tone, as if that was included in the article when it obviously was not. Please, no OR, and reference passages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.66.81.18 (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was sort of expecting an allegation of POV rather than OR. The passage at the end that you objected to was originally lifted from the German Wikipedia; in turn it came from a review of von Lingen's book. This was before I began work on expanding the article. We decided to just leave it as it was, to provide a German POV. It should be easy enough to footnote from the book, but it isn't out in English yet. So I have to either read it in German or wait a few more months.

Also, if you could provide a reference backing up your claim that Kesselring was ordered (by Hitler?) to use Jewish slave labour, that would be nice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As accurately explained by Hawkeye7, the removed text went straight from de.wiki and was added here to provide a German POV about a German General. AFAIK, translating articles from another Wiki (and an usually well reputed one as the German Wiki) isn't prohibited, neither should grant immediate removal and/or POV/OR accusations. I believe the unsigned user should have, at most, requested a citation. What is emboldened exactly? Anyways, maybe this review (in German sorry) might be used both as a reference and as a source for amending the text (which I'm going to put back online), should it be advisable. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the article about Anthony Eden does include well referenced information about the process of political revision which is also the matter of the passage, and they happen to be coherent with our article. I have also reverted the other edits by the unsigned anonymous contributor, explaining why in the editline. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I added fact tags for the two passages regarding the criticism, because they are unsourced. I think this is a fair compromise instead of removing them completely or letting them remain as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.66.81.18 (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they are actually unsourced. The source appears to be fairly clearly stated in the opening of the relevant section. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree- a source won't say that they suppressed material in the very source that is quoted- that's the whole problem- until this "suppressed" section is sourced (unless the paper said "we suppressed this material") , it remains dubious and unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.214.66 (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being confused by the universal translator. Zu Gute gehalten wurde ihm vor allem die Sicherung von Kunstschätzen und die Deklaration Roms zur „Offenen Stadt“. Verdrängt wurde die Auslöschung ganzer italienischer Dörfer, einschließlich Frauen, Kindern und Greisen, die auf den „Bandenbefehl“ vom 17. Juni 1944 hin begangen wurden. Verdrängt means "displaces, ousts, or supplants". Perhaps a better word would be "repressed" or "ignored". Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Hawkeye7 is right. It actually means that [the German public] suppressed (or ignored) [the whole concept] of the extermination of whole Italian villages, including women, children, and elders, which had been done based on his "bandenbefehl" of 17 June, 1944. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The wartime generation did not want to talk, and the post-war generation did not want to know. Von Lingen writes about this very process - the way that the actions of the government and media in Germany gave Kesselring and others a free pass. This remained the situation in Germany until recently, when a new generation of German historians began tackling the war. The quality of the work that they have been doing - particularly the folks at Potsdam working on the Germany and the Second World War series - has been extraordinarily high. The death of information in the meantime allowed some myths to spring up. The article notes the "myth that the Wehrmacht had "clean hands", and most if not all atrocities had been carried out by the SS and the Einsatzgruppen". This myth was not restricted to Germany; English-language histories contributed. The new generation of German historians has thoroughly debunked this, and then moved on to a related myth that all this happened on the Russian front. This has resulted in more attention being paid to Italy as a good counter-example. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bolzano-Bozen

Piero, you're putting fact tags on your own stuff. At present, our Kesselring article seems to be contradicting History of Alto Adige-South Tyrol. Can you tell me if the people of South Tyrol voluntarily joined Nazi Germany, or if it was merely annexed, as per the other article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What is about Kesselring "saving" Rome...

...by deliberately not withdrawing his troops through the city of Rome and therfore avoiding another Monte Cassino? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.89.100 (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Albert Kesselring/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

It looks pretty good, but I have a few concerns that I'd like to see addressed before this is promoted:

All points addressed

Did he have a wife or children? This isn't mentioned. Where did he maintain his home? In the Early life section it says "He married Luise Anna Pauline (Liny) Keyssler, the daughter of an apothecary from Bayreuth, in 1910. The couple honeymooned in Italy. Their marriage was childless, but in 1913 they adopted Ranier, the son of Albert's second cousin Kurt Kesselring." From then on, she is called Liny. Like most military types, they travelled around from base to base following his postings. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I don't know how I overlooked that.—RJH (talk) It says, "Ranier's mother, who typed them up at home", but doesn't clarify if this is his mother's home or his home.  Done. Changed to "her home". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC) A few of the paragraphs are longer than necessary. I think these would benefit from a judicious split. For example, the two paragraphs in "Chaotic surrender". Normally editors complain that my paragraphs are too short... Where would you propose splitting them? I can't see a good place.Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I think if you had to read them aloud, you'd probably start looking for a good place to take a break. :) The best spots for a new paragraph break may be at: "In October 1942, Kesselring was given direct command", "All over Italy, the Germans swiftly disarmed Italian units", "At first he did not accept the agreement...", "The German Armies in Italy were now utterly...", "He was taken to see Major General...", and "With the end of the war,...", but you may disagree. Some of the sentences are longer than they need to be. In particular: "Although earmarked for operations in the east, ..."  Done. "Meanwhile, SS Obergruppenführer Karl Wolff, ..." "This would expose southern Germany to bombers operating from Italy..."  Done. "Despite the principle laid down in the Moscow Declaration..."  Done. "...at the conclusion of which a warrant was issued for his arrest for his alleged involvement in a putsch against the command of III Bavarian Corps." This left me wondering what happened. Was he tried? Please provide a conclusion to this paragraph.  Done. "...Chief of Staff of the Luftwaffe on 3 June 1936. As chief of staff,..." Should the second 'chief of staff' be capitalized? It is only capitalised when it is part of a title. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC) "At times he flew over the concentration camps at Oranienburg, Dachau, and Buchenwald." Did he do this deliberately, or were these just along his flight path? If the former, then did he have a goal in mind? Otherwise, why should we care? Changed to "At times his flight path took him over". The point was that he had knowledge of the concentration camps (which he did not attempt to conceal or deny). But if you don't think this is significant, I'll remove it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not one to advocate removal of interesting information. I am just unclear about the significance, since it doesn't say whether he had knowledge of any war crimes taking place there. Shrug. "While initial air operations against the Netherlands went according to plan,..." At present there is a leap here from his taking command to operations already being underway. Please provide a transition prior to this sentence. I think the intended role of the paratroopers also needs to be explained.  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC) "Hitler's decision to halt the panzertruppen..." is another sentence that is missing context. Please insert a sentence to explain about the breakout and encirclement of the northern allied forces.  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC) "Convincing the army that air support should be concentrated at critical points took time, as units were all too inclined to call for air support." Could this be clarified? Did the call for close air support need to be moved up higher in the army chain of command?  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC) "He succeeded in ... neutralising Malta." Unless a reader is familiar with the North Africa campaign, this may not be meaningful. Please add an explanation so it is clear why an airborne attack was planned.  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Please clarify what "...assaults to capture Bir Hakeim..." and "...attack on Tobruk..." mean in the context of this battle.  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC) "Kesselring was slated to be posted to Norway. Kesselring was appalled." Please polish this up and also disambiguate why he was appalled.  Done. "...but gained the time that was their actual objective." Please disambiguate. "Well, gentlemen, I am the new V-3" Please clarify this for the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with the vengeance weapon programs. The footnote says: "referring to the Vergeltungswaffe ("vengeance" weapons) and, in particular, to the V-3 cannon, whose prototypes were fired on the western front in late 1944 and early 1945." Do you want it moved into the main text? I see a few spaced em-hashes. Please remove gaps or convert to en-dashes, per the MoS. Likewise, please convert the spaced dashes to en-dashes. (For example, ""Operation Sealion" - the invasion of Britain - was...".)  Done. Where you have links in the Notes section, I would like to see a more complete entry such as is provided by a {{cite web}} tamplete. For example, the "Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 9, Seventy Ninth Day, Tuesday, 12 March 1946" entry should list the publisher (Yale) and last access date.  Done. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my concerns. It is a nicely written biography that satisfies all of the GA criteria. I am pleased to promote it.—RJH (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No source to back up war crime claim

See also Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II#Monte Cassino

"a war crime under Section 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907, which forbid "all seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science".'"

This is a selective quotation and OR. For a start it is not section 56 it is article 56, and it is in an article in a section entitled "Section III, Military authority over the territory of the hostile state", It is not about the attacking of property still under the control of the enemy. If we are doing OR then we need to look at "Section II Hostilities: Chapter I Means of Injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and bombardments", article 27 (my emphasis)

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

I am removing the claim that it war a war crime. It is a highly controversial position to take as the majority of experts do not consider it to be a war crime, and if the statement is to be made then the most authoritative source should be named in the text of the article "John Doe has claimed that ...," and if a specific refutation has taken place it should continue "However Jane Doe disagrees and claims ..."

I am very disappointed that such a blatant piece of WP:OR from a primary source, would not be noticed by the editors working to make this a GA article. --PBS (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No objection here. However, I do think your opinion of the GA process, and myself, is excessively harsh. I think it was only necessary for you to point out the discrepancy without needlessly and snobishly making us volunteers look like dirt. For this reason I would ask that you take a look at Wikipedia:Civility.

Wikipedia does need to clarify why it is not considered a war crime by most, but that belongs on the Battle of Monte Cassino article. I would like to suggest that the section currently titled "War crimes" be split into a section on the preservation of art treasures and a section on the war crimes (beginning with the OSS paragraph).—RJH (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done this. The new section has been given the same title as that of the corresponding section in the English translation of Kesselring's book. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Monte Cassino

From the history of the article:

• 20:00, 10 August 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (fix double negative)
• 22:40, 10 August 2009 Hawkeye7 (Undid revision 307226084 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) No, this is incorrect)

The original wording: "Ultimately this was unsuccessful, because the Allies believed the monastery was used to direct the German artillery against their lines. As the morning of 15 February 1944,..."

my change: "Ultimately this was unsuccessful, as the Allies never believed the monastery would not be used to direct the German artillery against their lines. On the morning...

I tried to make the smallest change possible, and there lots of sources which state that the Allies believed that the Germans were in the monastery (eg this one). So what is it that is incorrect that is currently correct in the sentence? It seems to me that it was a divisive issue in the Allied high command with by and large the British (Commonwealth/Empire) supporting the bombing and the Americans against it. -- PBS (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The monastery was not being used by the Germans before it was bombed. Nor did the Allies believe that the monastery was being so used. General Freyberg, the New Zealand commander, believed that the monastery would be so used. His argument was that if the monastery were not bombed, then the Germans could move in at any time if the Allied attack looked like succeeded. On this point, the American commanders disagreed with their British Commonwealth counterparts, as you point out. So the correct positive version is something like:

"Ultimately this was unsuccessful because the Allies believed the monastery would be used to direct the German artillery against their lines. As the morning of 15 February 1944,..."

You could replace "the Allies" with "some Allied commanders" if you want to emphasise the point that not all agreed with this assessment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding work!

After being away from the Wikipedia editing "business" for a long while due to deployment, I must say that the work you have put into this article, Hawkeye7, has been very impressive. Congratulations on the promotion to feature article, and I hope that in the future its position as FA can be sustained! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:42, 17 October 2009 (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)

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)

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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: 18 January 2022).

• 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: [2], 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: [3]. 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: [4], 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 [5]?

--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)

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)

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)

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: [6] which reverted [7], and [8] which reverted [9] and part of [10]. 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: [11], 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: [12]. --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)

Some concerns

I notice that the article is at GAn again. I'm not expert on the subject so I won't do the review myself but there are two concerns I have that I feel should be dealt with before it becomes GA again.

• In the area of aerial doctrine, Kesselring has been described as a "worthy successor" to Wever. This is a WP:WEASEL problem. If this is James Corum's opinion, it should be directly attributed in text.

• Removed Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• The following comes from Note 5: The nickname "Smiling Albert" was bestowed on Kesselring by the Allies. It is not used by German writers. It was used during the war. In 1941, newspapers referred to him as "the keep smiling general".[153] By the time of the Tunisian campaign, American news sources were referring to him as "Smiling Albert".[154] This practice was well established by the time of the Italian campaign. See, for example "Up the Boot". Time. 19 April 1944. Retrieved 14 April 2020. All of these citations are to newspaper articles at the time, which serve as primary sources. This is a likely WP:SYNTH violation.

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a WP:SYNTH violation. The article is simply citing instances of the use of the term. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Hawkeye7: "The nickname "Smiling Albert" was bestowed on Kesselring by the Allies. It is not used by German writers." This statement needs verification by a secondary source. To find several examples of the term in Allied country newspapers and then reach that conclusion is original research. It also says "In 1941, newspapers referred to him as "the keep smiling general" and that is cited to a single Australian newspaper. The only correct conclusion one could reach should be "In 1941, the Cairns Post referred to him as "the keep smiling general." Expanding that claim to "newspapers" generally is an extrapolation. The next statement, "By the time of the Tunisian campaign, American news sources were referring to him as "Smiling Albert"." is sourced to a single Australian reprint of a Time magazine article. How can we use this to claim "American news sources"? All we can verify is that "By the time of the Tunisian campaign, Time referred to him as "Smiling Albert". To be precise, the article doesn't quite call him that in its own voice, it says "He is nicknamed Smiling Albert" but doesn't attribute that moniker. Finally, the last part of the note says This practice was well established by the time of the Italian campaign and then gives a single example. How are mere Wikipedia editors able to judge whether a practice is "well established" based off our own survey of newspaper archives? That's textbook original research and synth. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• • The sentence had a reference to a secondary source that notes that the nickname was bestowed on Kesselring by the Allies. (von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 16.) I have added that to note 5 as well. The Cairns Post article is reprinting an article from The New York Times. That makes two newspapers. I have tweaked the wording Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

    • Ok my concerns are addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

James Corum does indeed refer to him as "a worthy successor". It is not WP:WEASEL. Dapi89 (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I restored the tag which was removed here: [13], 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: [14]. --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)

I actually think that given this relates to the quality of the article and the GAR, and this is currently at GAN again, it should remain on the talk page for now, so have reverted the archiving. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 14 June 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)

World Wars

I am not a grammar nazi (no pun intended) but I tripped a little on the capitalisation for World Wars in the lead. The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS 8.113: World War I, Vietnam War, the war, the two world wars) suggests lower case should be preferred, but it is something of a hybrid, so it is one of those things more in the gray than black and white. Kangaresearch 15:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Y De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive work you have put into the article, by the way. I am sure it is, and will be, appreciated by many. Kangaresearch 06:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Referencing style

Is there a reason this article doesn't use links between its footnotes and its references? That is, why doesn't it use {{sfn}} to link references to the material that provides them? Instead, it uses a raw reference, like <ref>Alexander ''The Alexander Memoirs 1940–1945'', p. 125.</ref> which results in plain text, unlinked to the "Alexander" book in the bibliography. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's old. The {{sfn}} template was not created in 2009, but the first footnotes were added to the article in 2007. By the time I started overhauling the article in 2007, the older {{harvnb}} template was available, but the article already had footnotes in the long form, so I continued using the format that was in the article at that time, per WP:CITEVAR and a 2006 ArbCom ruling: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)