Talk:1940 Field Marshal Ceremony

Overview

I noticed that there was no article regarding the ceremony, so I made one since it's a very important piece of history. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Good initiative, but it really doesn't say much about the ceremony itself or why it was important. The sections of the main article body belong more properly to a subject like "Field Marshal (Nazi Germany)" rather than in an article about the ceremony. Constantine ✍ 09:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I can't really say I agree? I feel there's plenty information about the ceremony itself. It's very important because it was the first occasion in World War II, that Hitler appointed field marshals due to military achievements. Appreciating the historical circumstances regarding the ceremony, I'd say it's a very good (if not perfect) article. Of course this is just my opinion. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the ceremony itself gets distinctly less space than the context, and is almost telegrahically short and the context sections are rather unconnected with each other. Then there is some info I feel is missing outright. For instance, aside from details about the proceedings of the ceremony itself that could be included, I am sure there is some analysis to be found as to the motives behind raising 12 people to field marshals at one stroke, compared to the sparsity with which this was done in WWI, and the effects this had (read: devaluation) on the prestige of the German Army's highest rank. Constantine ✍ 15:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I partly agree on most of what you said, there can defiantly be added some information about the prestige of the rank. I'm kind of busy tonight, so if you wish to write and add it your own way, feel free. Forgive me if I might edit it a little bit. This was the very first article I created on Wikipedia, and is therefore very proud and protective over it, I'm sure a long-time Wikipedia user like yourself relates and understands what I'm saying. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay Constantine. I have now added much more information regarding the ceremony, reasons for promotion a total of 12 generals, and much more. I don't think you can improve this article much more, in terms of text and understanding. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The depth of the article is better now. It just needs some cite clean up and reference book additions. And given the fact there are other short one day event articles, such as Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday, that stands alone, I believe this one can, as well. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kierzek, I totally agree. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

New section

In the attempt to get this article to GA status I have added a new section or more or less added much more information regarding each field marshals part in the Battle of France and later career and life. I forgot Hermann Goering, but I will add him sooner or later. Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

GA status nominee

I have gone as far as to nominate this article for GA status after all the work and time I have put into it. I certainly believe it deserves the title. Looking forward to see if it actually will pass. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Field marshal section

After many requests, I added a part/section about the legacy of the rank itself. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

GA status

This article deserves a "good article" status, someone should add it, I don't really how that system works. Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It has to be independently reviewed and pass the review to get the icon added and to be listed as a Good Article. See: Wikipedia:Good articles. It is not easy and if it doesn't pass, don't take it personally. One can keep working on it overtime. Most articles take a lot of time and work to gain that status. You may want to start out by asking someone to review it in general from a relevant section; for this article that would be: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. If you want to go that route, see the link and follow the directions therein. You will have to add the Military History header to get it on the list for review or you can ask me and I will add the header herein. It is up to you. Kierzek (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Some comments

Per the request on my talk page, I've read through this article and would like to offer the following comments on it.

• As an overall comment, I think that this is currently well short of GA standard. The article provides very little detail on the event it covers, and contains a fair amount of irrelevant material and some questionable assertions.
• " In popular culture, the ceremony is regarded as a propaganda stunt" - what does this mean? Surely the opinions of historians are more relevant than "popular culture"
• "Hermann Göring had already been promoted field marshal in 1938 and was instead promoted to Reichsmarschall, and was the only German to have held this rank" - this implies that non-Germans have held the rank: is this correct?
• What's the relevance of the paragraph starting with "In 1943, shortly before the surrender of the 6th Army at Stalingrad"? If you want to say that the rank was considered incredibly prestigious and also imposed certain expectations on officers of this level, say this clearly.
• "The event unofficially downgraded the value of the prestigious rank, to a certain degree." - what this means is unclear, and the number of qualifiers attached renders this confusing to readers. I'm also unsure about the relevance of this entire paragraph.
• "Most of Hitler's generals were appalled at the possibility of another major war in Europe and thought seriously about overthrowing Hitler and his military ambitions," - that's not accurate. Modern historians generally note the widespread support Hitler enjoyed from the higher echelons of the military, as well as the rank and file. Your 1960s-era source is likely outdated: the lies the surviving senior Nazi Generals put forward to justify their complicity in the war were generally accepted in the Cold War era but have since been discredited.
• The article doesn't discuss the roles each future Field Marshal played in the invasion of France, which seems a key part of this event
• Similarly, it doesn't describe why Hitler decided to take the unusual decision to promote so many generals to field marshal. Was this part of the widespread celebrations over the victory against France, or did it form part of his deliberate policy of bribing senior military officers to ensure their support? (which later saw many field marshals and generals awarded large estates in Poland and the USSR and/or given large payments)
• What's the relevance of the material on the 20 July plot? It would be much better to discuss the subsequent careers of these officers rather than focus on a single event. Did they turn out to be successful field marshals? (in military, political, legal and moral terms - I imagine that many were responsible for atrocities)
• "Many, if not most, generals and field marshals supported a plot to remove Hitler from power by 1944" - dubious, and again cited to a long-outdated source - removed. Kierzek (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• "This allegiance, which millions of soldiers had to pledge, proved to be fateful as it choked opposition to him" - that's rather simplistic. The oath was a major factor (which is why German soldiers now pledge allegiance to the parliament and constitution and are given considerable freedom to refuse orders they judge to be illegal or immoral), but not the only one. Many of the senior officers by this point in the war were deeply committed Nazis, and the level of brutality directed at any opposition to the Nazis suppressed the resistance. - removed. Kierzek (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• What's the relevance of the 'Deaths' section? It includes officers who were not promoted in this ceremony and seems irrelevant.
• Lumping the above four comments together, I'd suggest that you include a section which discusses the subsequent careers and fates of the officers who were promoted in this ceremony rather than the current piecemeal approach.
• Many of the sources referenced in the Notes section don't have their full bibliographic details provided in the references section. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a mouthful. I will do my best to improve the points you mentioned. Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just spent about a good hour improving the article, tell what you think of it now. Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that the article describes the event it claims to cover in only two sentences and provides little explanation for this event or reflections on its consequences, and many of my above comments remain addressed. The reference to Manstein which has been added is irrelevant: he was only a corps commander, and was in fact promoted (to the rank of full General) for his role in the campaign. Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes well, I did the best I can. I'm aware Manstein was promoted to full General, but since the page was regarding field marshals I didn't think it was that relevant. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't see the problem with old sources. Honestly, I'd say that books or other work created as close to the post-war era as possible is more reliable, like the 1960s book references I added. Furthermore removing the entire section about the army support to remove Hitler from power is wrong. It's a fact that many generals, and some field marshals, supported a plot to remove Hitler from power by 1944, perhaps not most as it previously stated, but many. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

More recent histories are generally more useful as they take the substantial developments in the historiography of the war over time into account. In the 1960s the myths that the Germany Army was generally not aligned with the Nazis and had fought a "clean" war were still widely believed. Work by German historians in the 1970s and 1980s completely discredited these views. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to modern historians, let's not forget that the German Army was not a Nazi organization. Under military rule, soldiers and officers were forbidden to belong to a political party and did not have the right to vote, Seeckt always emphasized the importance of being completely neutral and non-political, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying: "In the 1960s the myths that the Germany Army was generally not aligned with the Nazis and had fought a "clean" war were still widely believed." The German Army didn't necessarily fight for just Hitler and Nazism, but for their country and families like every other country in World War II. Here's a quote from a veteran:

Back then, when we joined the Reichswehr, which I did in 1926, we accepted the obligation to be non-political and we did not have the right to vote. Seeckt had educated us to be non-political.

— Raban von Canstein, Mainstein's adjutant

Of course the Waffen-SS was fanatically committed to Nazism and Hitler, but they also differ significantly from the army. And of course, regular army soldiers did indeed committed war crimes against civilians and so on, I'm not trying to prove you wrong in that, but certainly not all, even Waffen-SS veterans never saw any war crimes, here's another quote:

I was in the Waffen-SS in the whole war. And I never saw any war crimes.

— German Waffen-SS survivor

Does this quote mean that the Waffen-SS didn't commit any war crimes? of course not, just the same way evidence proving that crimes had been committed by the army, doesn't incriminate the entire army. What I'm basically saying is that I believe it's wrong to mistrust work in the 1960s and 1970s because "the myths that the Germany Army was generally not aligned with the Nazis and had fought a "clean" war were still widely believed." Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

re Comment 6: While it is probably true that the general staff were not (except for exceptions) generally appalled at the prospect of a major European war (though probably not for reasons of the NS-Lebensraum philosophy, but on more traditional militaristic ground), this does not rule out the possibility (the very likely possibility) that they were appalled at a major European war started by Germany in no position to win it. (And few of them would have calculated with a six-week defeat of France.)

re Comment 7: some time ago, I added the actual positions of the respective generals, which should make the matter clear.

re Comment 8: Hitler's decision to promote "so many Field Marshals" might be unusual but only partly unusual. Of course his wish to make the general staff loyal by prestigious positions (as well as the infamous "dotations" in money) can be assumed to be an underlying motive - but still, most of the positions of the generals promoted were "natural" Field Marshal positions. The promotion of these generals, given that they fought a victorious campaign holding these positions, was a natural affair. (By a tradition, Field Marshals would only be created for success in war; the unusual thing being the early promotions of Blomberg, Göring, and Raeder). The cases of generals in positions that were not usual field marshal positions but still got promoted are limited to three Army Commanders (usually a Colonel General position) and perhaps the Air Force promitions, which latter can be explained by the fact that Göring being now Reich Marshal, he should have some Field Marshals under him (and perhaps also by an actual significant contribution of the Air Force to the temporary victory).--2001:A61:260C:C01:C0E7:A61E:AD2B:782F (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

References

I noticed that "Garver" is used in the in-line citations, but I couldn't find a reference for him. Greedo8 16:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And Evans, Regan, Beevor, Forczyk, Melvin; all, along with Garver, listed in §Notes but without matching citations in §References.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where to get the book references? Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to go back to the other articles and/or books you used for the inline sentence cites and add the books to the reference section (in the way I did for the ones I found which you did and/or put in from the additions I made); in that same format. Kierzek (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Too much information

It seems to me that much of the information in this article should be moved to Field Marshal (Germany), and this article should remain focused on the 1940 ceremony itself. The actions of the Field Marshals that participated in the ceremony shouldn't be discussed in depth on this article. Greedo8 16:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose moving this article or a large portion of it's information to Field Marshal (Germany). Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the article itself deserves its own page, it's just the amount of unrelated and semi-related information that concerns me. Greedo8 18:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you could mention some specific information it would defiantly be easier for me to agree or disagree with you, as well as making changes to improve the article. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look at a later date, and get back to you with specifics. Greedo8 15:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Major improvement

Hi everyone. I just spent about 2 hours doing huge amounts of cite and reference clean up. It was truly a mess before, but now it's a shiny Wikipedia star. Now it should be able to pass for GA status. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Because of the new improvements I have re-nominated it for GA status. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Kierzek, both you and I have done a lot of cleaning up on this article, what do you think it needs to get to GA status? I'd also like your opinion on the recent change I made. I changed the top title section from "Field marshal" to "The prestigious rank". Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the section title "Field marshal" better, myself. As for additional work, make sure the sentences or group of sentences on each point/information have good WP:RS citations (and don't use Britannica). And for each book or source used, make sure they are properly listed in the Reference section. Then ask the GA reviewer what it still needs and listen to him or her. Kierzek (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Why cant I use Britannica, Kierzek? Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

These {{sfn}} references do not have matching citations in §References:

Erickson 2001

Turney 1971

Kesselring 1970

Manfred & Joachim 1998

Williamson 2006

Regan 2004

Garver 1988

Antill 2007

Higgins 2007

Dear & Foot 2005

Forczyk 2010

Melvin 2010

The commonly accepted method for disambiguating two or more citations of an author who has published multiple works in the same year is to add a lowercase alpha suffix to the year portion of the date. So, instead of |ref = {{sfnRef|Knopp II|1998}} use {{sfn|Knopp|1998a}} and |date=1998a.

Shouldn't the entries in §References be in alpha order?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Trappist they should be in proper order and Jonas you need to fix the cites as is recommended above and add the books cited into the Reference section. Lastly, to answer your query, Britannica is not considered a good RS source by itself; just as one cannot use a Wikipedia article statement by itself as a cited source in another Wikipedia article. Kierzek (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have now added all you mentioned above in the reference book section, Kierzek. What now? Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

However, you are still adding in (and therefore still using) Britannica as a source. Look at the main pages for the men and events being covered here in the article; there should be plenty of WP:RS sources you can use for cites and References besides Encyclopedia Britannica and instead of "spartacus-educational", which I know some reviewers will reject as I have seen other editors cite it in the past. Kierzek (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the argument that Britannica and Spartacus is not a reliable source a Wikipedia policy or merely individuals point of view? And also, most of the field marshals own pages lack reliable source and sometimes sources overall. Therefore, I sometimes feel compelled to use Britannica and Spartacus. I can, however, remove Brit' and Spar' in those sentences where book sfn's are already used? Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I already address the query above. If you don't own books needed, try Google books view of pages for the cites or your library system (to get the books for the cites needed). Kierzek (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, Kierzek. let's say that done. Do you then believe the article could pass for GA status? Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Add in the RS cites and books cited and then I will have a look. BTW, to be clear, Spartacus Educational is a free online encyclopedia, like Wikipedia; so like Wikipedia itself and Britannica, it is not standing alone, a WP:RS source for citing. Kierzek (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Alright, Kierzek, I almost cant think of anything more to do for this article; I have replaced all non-reliable sources with book sources, all of which are referenced with Harvard templates. I have removed, reformulated, changed or switched around information from all over the article. Most notably, I have added much more section about the ceremony itself. What you say it's now worth a GA-nomination? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I will read through it and let you know. Kierzek (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. After you look it over, you can put it up and see what the reviewer thinks. Kierzek (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. The article is much better now, I'm sure it will pass. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheeler-Bennett and Wistrich in §Sources are not used in the article.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Good spotted. I have removed them. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1940 Field Marshal Ceremony/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 15:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Very appreciated. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rework the first two sentences of the lede so that the first sentence says what it was and the second says where and why.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No quote marks around general field marshal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• No hyphen in this: field marshal-promotions

Fixed. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Don't list the promotees in the lede as it's supposed to summarize the entire article.

I disagree. I feel it's important to mention who the generals in questions was in the lead, and so I have kept it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's as may be, but it makes no sense to duplicate the list; the only difference is that you give positions in the main body. It violates WP:MOSINTRO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Who considered France to have the strongest army in the world? As a superlative it needs to be cited, even though it's in the lede.

I have reformulated. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Typos : power and prestigious, and symbolic ornamented.

I have reformulated. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely; symbolic ornamented is still present.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• We know from the get go that we're discussing German field marshals, so why tell the reader that twice in quick succession?

I don't understand this? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• You might rework the Battle of France para so that the Heer and the Luftwaffe are in separate sentences. Alternatively, replace this with a table for easier comprehension.

I have merged the entire section with the next one. Hopefully it's OK now. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Trim one or the other as they're redundant: looking forward and expected

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• richly decorated field marshal batons Delete all the adjectives here as you've already described the batons.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Provide the original German phrase "Sichelschnitt" for sickle cut and link to the appropriate section of the Battle of France article.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• You're overusing "field marshal promotion"; rephrase some of these.

I have rephrased some, but also kept some in places I felt it was necessary. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony was the first occasion Hitler appointed field marshals due to military achievements and was celebrated like no other promotion ceremony in Germany.[19][29] The remaining five years of the war saw an additional twelve field marshal promotions, most of which were without ceremony, such as Friedrich Paulus's field marshal promotion, Delete all usages after the first of "field marshal". The reader already know what rank you're referring to; don't insult zhe's intelligence.

OK, I see what you mean now. Will delete some more. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Link cyanide

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• The Wehrmacht is the armed forces, it doesn't have armed forces of its own.

Well spotted, I have removed it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Be consistent about using place of publication and title case or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments I can't help but notice that this article still provides virtually no coverage to the ceremony it purports to cover. It also doesn't discuss why Hitler chose to promote so many generals so quickly, and the process through which this decision was made and put into place. The purpose of the 20 July plot section is unclear to me, and isn't a substitute for an 'aftermath' section in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Kierzek, AustralianRupert, Cplakidas, Brigade Piron and Trappist the monk for your contributions in the face of the GA-review. To answer your question Nick-D, I have merged some sections, added information and reformulated some, so as to create a long section about the ceremony itself. I definitely discusses the ceremony itself more now. Don't you agree? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And regarding the 20 July plot, I believe it is relevant because the 20 July plot was, kind of, a turning point in terms of military loyalty to Hitler. Take Manstein for instance, he, as you well know, said "Prussian field marshals do not munity". And Model, just to give another example, felt compelled to commit suicide explicitly because he had heard Hitler's long speeches about Paulus surrender. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it's not immediately clear why the 20 July plot material is relevant to an article on the promotion ceremony four years earlier. Either add a transition sentence or two to link it or delete it as irrelevant (you're getting into field marshal trivia here without a transition to connect the pieces).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As these officers were largely loyal officers of the Nazi regime who played a key role in waging its aggressive wars (with several being responsible for war crimes), focusing only on the relatively honourable aspect of the post-promotion careers of the field marshals introduces significant bias into the article. The ceremony is only accorded a single para... Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Will look further into this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The new material is an improvement, but is still focused on the positive aspects of these mens careers. Several went onto be convicted war criminals (including with responsibility for aspects of the Holocaust), and several presided over major defeats, but the article portrays them as simply serving as soldiers and dumps blame on Hitler. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In §The ceremony was this sentence:

Some believe that it was the personal dispute between Hitler and Manstein that prevented Manstein's field marshal promotion.

The sentence has been replaced with this:

Senior members of the General Staff believed it was the personal dispute between Hitler and Manstein that prevented Manstein's field marshal promotion.

I don't understand how the link to Erich von Manstein#Dismissal, apparently a 1944 event, is the answer to the clarify template that I added. If there was a personal dispute between Hitler and Manstein in 1940, either identify the nature of the dispute or drop the sentence from the section. Similarly, Senior members of the General Staff believed ... is just about as vague as the original Some believe ...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Trappist, the source linked to the claim explains it all in further detail. There was indeed a personal dispute between Hitler and Manstein and people know anything about Manstein knows this. Manstein's article mentions parts of the dispute in different places so there was no perfect place to use the link, but ultimately decided #Dismissal was the best place to direct. In any case, just because you haven't heard of the dispute or don't understand it, doesn't mean the dispute should have an article of it's own. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Presumably, people who read this article are like me and know nothing about Hitler and Manstein. You cannot depend on readers to have the same knowledge that you do.

I'm not asking for a whole article about the dispute. If the dispute is important to this article, then you must state the nature of the dispute. Sending readers off to another page where the first date in the section is 1944; where neither a dispute nor even the word mentioned; and to then expect readers to cast about in that page for the reason is not acceptable.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, in any case, I don't recognize the problem. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I do recognize the problem brought up by Trappist and you need to elucidate the nature of the dispute. Adding a sentence will do as the current link is too vague to be useful. Particularly since you linked to Manstein in the first sentence of the paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, will tweak it then. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

More comments

• No other field marshal promotions were celebrated like this ceremony throughout the rest of the war. This is awkward, delete "ceremony" and substitute "for" for "throughout".

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hermann Göring had already been promoted field marshal in 1938 and was instead promoted to Reichsmarschall, and was the only one to have held this rank. Put this bit about the only person to have held that rank in a note as it's not directly relevant for this article.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Rework the Field Marshal paragraph to explain the rank in the first sentence, in both Imperial and Nazi usages. Emphasize that it was the highest rank ordinarily achievable rather than using peacock words like prestigious and respected.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• After Hitler and Nazis came to national power in January 1933, they began an enormous expansion of the military; it was part of Hitler's desire to restore the army's power and prestige. How does the second part of the sentence relate to the first? In other words, what exactly does "it" refer to? The restoration of the rank? It's not clear to an ordinary reader what you're referring to.

I don't see the problem here at all, I think the second sentence matches the first one perfectly? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Break out a thesaurus, you're still over-using "richly decorated". Try ornate or some other synonyms.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• A German field marshal received a yearly salary of 36,000 Reichsmarks and was exempt from income tax. Rephrase with some sort of introductory clause to improve flow. Something like "More tangible benefits included".

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• grand ceremony of promotions rephrase to "grand promotion ceremony" One ceremony with many promotions.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Further he hoped the promotions rephrase to "He also hoped".

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Move the first paragraph in The ceremony section to follow Hitler's invitation to the ceremony.

I don't quite see how that could be done? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Add more details to the ceremony itself. I presume that there was an audience, who attended? Ordinary citizens or Nazi bigwigs?

I think it's rather vague to say "add more details on the ceremony itself". There is an entire section for the ceremony itself and the article has already described those people who attended: Hitler and his generals. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Were all of the promotees already Generalobersts or were some Generalleutnants like Manstein? This needs to be mentioned for fairness: everybody else was an army or army group commander, while Manstein was only a corps commander. So there may well not have been any slighting at all by Hitler.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, I've got an idea which will require a major expansion so please give me a day or two. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, take your time. Be advised that you've got a fair amount of material already that really doesn't relate to the ceremony itself and you don't need to add to that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, me and Kierzek are now done expanding and improving. You may continue you're review now. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the above that the mention of Manstein here is odd. His promotion two years later to FM skipped over GeneralOberst, so AFAICT to go from a brand-new full General to FM would be irregular (for the Heer at least, I see the LW had two new FMs this way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.145.199 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Failed at nominator's request--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Napoleon's Marshals

After crowning himself Emperor, Napoleon (I) revived the rank of Marshal of France in a mass promotion c 1804. The initial batch included some quite senior figures who had been generals in their own right before he came to power (eg. Kellerman, Massena, Bernadotte) as well as figures, some of them quite able, who were very much his subordinates (Davout, Soult, Ney etc). Later on other Marshals were promoted (eg. Victor, Marmont, Poniatowski, Grouchy).

Is there any evidence that Hitler's mass promotion was inspired, even in part, by Napoleon's mass promotion? Do any historians speculate that this was the case? If so, it would be worth mentioning.Paulturtle (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)