Talk:Adolf Galland/Archive 1

Untitled

Didn't Galland's plane have Mickey Mouse nose art?--GABaker---Preceding comment posted from 206.229.31.40 (talk:contribs) at 20.30, 27 May 2005

Yes, some of his Bf-109s wore caricatures of Mickey Mouse. I don't recall exactly which ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.195.196 (talk • contribs) 23.58, 7 July 2005

The following transcript is taken from: http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blgalland2.htm

WWII: What was the real story behind the Mickey Mouse insignia painted on the fuselage of your fighter plane?

Galland: We started this in Spain, and when I painted it on my Me-109E in JG.26 it was holding a hatchet and smoking a cigar, which I loved. But after the war I had to give cigars up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.63.101 (talk • contribs) 13 October 2005

Real Story Behind Galland's Victories

---

Galland's score of 103 victories was a figure of Nazi propaganda. The article is about how the Luftwaffe augmented its pilots scores mainly focusing on Galland. This explains Galland's high score, the high amount of Luftwaffe aces and their high scores, and the Luftwaffe's claim having a higher kill ratio than the RAF in the Battle of Britain which they lost. Galland's own stories are also very unbelievable and cannot be trusted. It appears he wanted to make himself appear to be a hero and chivalrous. But he was no hero and had no chivalry. http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/coppens.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.9 (talk • contribs) 04.16, 17 February 2006

Why is this dragged out on numerous Pilot bio pages? The German point system had nothing to do with the number of kills recorded. Let this puppy die already. Abel29a 00:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why was he not a hero? Because his side lost? Heroism is not a quality reserved for the winning side in a war. Galland served his country with distinction and unlike some other WW2 air force generals on both sides, did nothing to dishonor his country. I'm sure he's a hero to the Germans. Jsc1973 (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Galland's (and most luftwaffe ace's) score stands up to scrutiny far better than many other of the combatant nations pilots in WW2. Whilst inevitably there was alot of over claiming ( as happens in all air combat in WW2) The higher scores in the Luftwaffe fighter force occured because; - they were outnumbered and therefore had plenty of targets -on all fronts, - they were, for the first half of the war at least, tactically and technologically superior to all its opponents. - flew far more missions than Allied pilots ( i.e. Erich Hartmann flew got his 352 in ~800 missions, Francis Grabreski, one of the highest scoring USAAF pilot got 28 kills in ~153) - the pilots did not have rest periods like Allied pilots- they flew until they were incapacitated or died. The Luftwaffe did indeed overclaim during the Battle of Britain. This was due to the problems of kill confirmation flying over enemy held territory. The RAF did exactly the same during the Northern France fighter sweeps in 1941-42 ; one German fighter was shot down for every 5 the RAF claimed destroyed ! This is no reflection of their courage or sincerity- its just what happens in the confusion of war. User:Harryurz 20:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)]

The First and the Last

Just came here to ask about The First and the Last. Today, in a small bookstore in Rosario, Argentina, I found and bought a Spanish-language edition of the book which is dated 1955. The edition is by Emecé Editores S.A., Buenos Aires. It has a prologue (explicitly titled "Prologue to the English edition") by Douglas Bader, dated 9 December 1954. The page before the prologue says "Translated by the Argentine Air Force under the author's supervision, with the collaboration of Commander Daniel Pedro Aubone. Translation kindly ceded by the Aeronautics Circle." So there seems to be a mistake in the 1957 date given here. I'm giving the details so you can check. (The fact that Galland had contact with the Argentine Armed Forces is not surprising — according to the final page, the book came out of the press in August 1955, a month before the Revolución Libertadora ousted Juan Perón.) —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments moved from the article itself

JG 26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe by Donald Caldwell

Fighter reserves were not used up in the Ardennes offensive as the weather was too bad during the offensive to permit much flying in support of the ground offensive. Rather, the reserves were used up in Operation Bodenplate (Base Plate) on the morning 01/01/45 - a surprise attack by massed Luftwaffe aircraft aimed at hitting Allied airfields in France and Belgium and destroying large numbers of aircraft on the ground.

This was a strategy Galland disagreed with as his intention for this reserve of aircraft was an all-out offensive against the USAAF heavy bomber raids on Germany.

Galland's cigar lighter modification is a verified fact - see David Baker's Adolf Galland the Authorised Biography. Galland allowed himself this luxury on all of his personal aircraft and was rarely seen without a cigar in his mouth!

Moved these comments here from the main articke Abel29a 16:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nickname

In response to Adam Carr who keeps removing the nickname from the infobox: Why is there a nickname section added in the infobox for military personell unless you are supposed to list the persons nickname there? Not that I really care wheter we list the nickname or not, but wouldnt this have been decided on when the military history project actually created the infoboxes? Abel29a 04:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not privy to what others may have decided. His nickname is included in the text. I fail to see how why the fact that a person called Adolf was called "Dolfy" by his friends belongs in his info box. Adam 05:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed this has caused such a fuss. I'm (fairly) happy to have it in the article but not in the infobox, if only to prevent a revert war going on here, which is what I can see happening. For what it's worth, I have no problem with it being in the infobox. A nickname for a military leader is not the same as a nickname for any old Joe Bloggs in the street, there is precedence for including nicknames in biographies of military people, it has been generally accepted and has never proven contentious before as far as I can see. However, we might as well leave it as is, but if someone adds it back in I will not take it out.Mumby 08:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"A nickname for a military leader is not the same as a nickname for any old Joe Bloggs in the street." And why is that? Why does Richard Nixon's infobox not record that his friends called him "Dick"? Or the Marquess of Hartington's that he was called "Harty-Tarty"? I fail to see why what Luftwaffe pilots were called by their friends is of more historical signifance than what presidents and prime ministers were called. Adam 08:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why Nixon's infobox does not mention it, but I do know that there is an entire page called List of United States Presidential nicknames. If they are deemed worthy of their own page, surely they are worthy of being in an infobox? Try doing a search of wikipedia for "nickname list", you'll find that there are many wikipdians who consider that all kinds of nicknames are significant in some way. Anyway, we aren't talking about presidents, or European Royalty and Nobility: G-I. In answer to your question, I don't know why fighter pilots make such a big deal of their nicknames, but if you read anything about them then it soon becomes apparent that they do put a lot of emphasis on them. Some are earned, or reflect a particular event that happened to the pilot, others are just a diminutive form of their full name e.g. Bob. I see the point you are trying to make about it possibly being a name that only his friends used, and therefore is not on the same standing as, for example, Sailor Malan, but I think the nickname is slightly more general and widely used than that. But, like I said, I do see your point. Anway, I refer you to my previous comment: "we might as well leave it as is, but if someone adds it back in I will not take it out." Mumby 10:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me to leave the nickname in the intro of the text and not the infobox - I'm fine with that as well. The only thing is almost every pilot article in here has the nickname listed, so somebody is bound to come along and put it back in :) Abel29a 17:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dolfo? lol! I too am perplexed why the fuss over a nickname when his FULL name isnt even given? "Adolf Joseph Ferdinand", according to Britannica. Alongside Britannica I have luftwaffe documents with his name given "I.A Galland" (but I discover that I.A = im Auftrag). Never have I seen the man referred to as "Dolfo". That appears to originate with 'luftwaffe.cz' (copied, like much of the detail in all the wikipedia luftwaffe articles, without a 2nd thought). Dee Mac Con Uladh 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that not having his full name wasn't great for the article. I have added the nickname back in with a full reference. I should have referenced it properly a long time ago. The suggestion that it "appears to originate with 'luftwaffe.cz' (copied, like much of the detail in all the wikipedia luftwaffe articles, without a 2nd thought)" isn't true, I have seen him referred to as Dolfo many times, and I have never been to that website. Lets get a few things clear: I am not a particular fan of Galland, or the luftwaffe. I don't get off on adding some guys nickname, it doesn't give me any pleasure to edit this page, and to be honest I don't care either way. Many pilots have a nickname, almost all of them sound stupid, Galland appears to be no different. However, the fact that so much literature makes a point of mentioning these nicknames is sufficient reason to consider them encyclopedic, in my opinion. Let's remember that we are all doing this in what little free time we have, so lets be nice to each other and maybe even respect the effort that others put into their contributions.Mumby 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

gallands comment to goering ref spitfires

Bruce, the problem here is simple, use your source! At the moment Kaplan is credited with saying this exactly. He does not. Please remove my citation of Kaplan and replace it whith the one one you have just given. That is all I am asking. Dapi89 (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording as stated in Galland's

• Galland, Adolf. The First and The Last. Cutchogue, New York: Buccaneer Books, 1954. ISBN 0-89966-728-7.

Is "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron" (page 29). The book was translated by Mervyn Savill. To my understanding of Wiki, the reference to a publicly available book/source supersedes an editors translation, even if this translation comes closer to the truth. I suggest adding both the German and the English wording to the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I second MisterBee's suggestion. The quote as you've given it from p.29 of The First & the Last tallies with my recollection of the 60s paperback edition (which I can't locate at the moment so I'm glad you've been able to validate my memory). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand it from my copy of First & Last (pages 28 and 29) Galland made that infamous comment partly to "wind up" Goring and partly because he thought the Spitfire (with its superior maneuverability) made a better defensive fighter, though he didn`t really think there was such a thing anyway. Galland actually preferred the BF109. The relevent extract is :

"The Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more maneuverable.................................Goring turned to me. I did not hesitate long. `I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron`. After I`d blurted this out, I received rather a shock. It was not really meant that way. Of course fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire. But I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and stubborness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute"

Thus I think this well known phrase is misleading if quoted on its own and out of the context in which it was made. --JustinSmith (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Has the comment that Galland`s outburst (wanting an outfit of Spitfires) was meant as a riposte to Goering been removed (because I cannot find it in the article) ? I feel that this background is essential for understanding the context of the remark --JustinSmith (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is still in the article in the "Battle of Britain" section: Galland replied: "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron." which left Göring speechless with rage. (Hohum ^@) 15:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death and status of museum

Does anyone know his cause of death and whether his private museum still exists? 128.112.147.1 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

there's a mistake

"That same mechanic, when Galland was discharged from hospital, received 100 DM and two days leave.[citation needed]"

you won't find that citation - the Deutsche Mark did not exist then - that mechanic got Reichsmark (Imperial Mark) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.204.81 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Galland`s view of, and relationship with, the Nazi party

What was Galland`s view of, and relationship with, the Nazi party ? Was he ever a member ? I think this is relevant information which should be in this article, particularly having read his autobiography which doesn`t hint at his political views, certainly not for the first few years of the war. He does refer to the Nazi party as `the party` rather than the Nazi party. Personally I would only refer to a political party as `the party` if I was part of it, but what is the truth of the matter ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinSmith (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Galland was never a member of the Nazi party and was among the most vociferous opponents of many Nazi "big wigs" including Göring. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

I recently read that serving members of the German armed forces in WW2 were not permitted to be members of the Nazi party. Is that correct ? If so, does the fact the Galland wasn`t a member of the Nazi party actually tell us anything ? He certainly was a vociferous critic of many at the top of the Nazi party/the government, but was that more to do with their poor stategic decisions ? The other autobiographies of high ranking Germans in WW2 which I have read (Speer and Dönitz) both make more specific comments in the criticism of the Nazi party, whereas Galland fails to do this.--JustinSmith (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Where did you recently read that serving members of the German armed forces in WW2 were not permitted to be members of the Nazi party? (Hohum ^@) 15:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Keitel#Nazi_connections But you can`t believe what you read on Wikipedia. Only joking ! I thought I`d read it somewhere elase too, but can`t remember where. --JustinSmith (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The pre-1933 Reichswehr had banned its members joining political parties, and this was maintained for some time after 1933. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP#War_and_eclipse

Nazi members with military ambitions were encouraged to join the Waffen-SS, but a great number enlisted in the Wehrmacht and even more were drafted for service after World War II began. Early regulations required that all Wehrmacht members be non-political, and therefore any Nazi member joining in the 1930s was required to resign from the Nazi Party.
This regulation was soon waived, however, and there is ample evidence that full Nazi Party members served in the Wehrmacht in particular after the outbreak of World War II. The Wehrmacht Reserves also saw a high number of senior Nazis enlisting, with Reinhard Heydrich and Fritz Todt joining the Luftwaffe, and Major Ronald von Brysonstofen of the Waffen-SS, as well as Karl Hanke who served in the Army.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP#Military_membership

Both sadly unreferenced. (Hohum ^@) 17:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, a secondary source: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5-1iPJHT65oC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA69#v=onepage&q&f=false (Hohum ^@) 17:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Finucane and the Birthday Party

This article says that on April 15, 1941:

• Galland got into a dogfight with Finucane and was shot down, over the channel I presume, but was rescued several hours later.

and, also on April 15, 1941:

• Galland attended a birthday party for Osterkamp, along with Molder, and provides a picture of Galland with Molder and Osterkamp.

While both stories may be true, it does sound, on the surface, to be questionable. Did Galland get shot down, rescued from the Channel several hours later and was still able to make it to Osterkamp's birthday party that day?

There should be some more explanation about the approximate times he took off, was shot down, was rescued, got on another plane and landed for the party, to make the story more believable.

Other websites say that Finucane shot down Galland and so Galland was not able to make the birthday party. But, the picture of Galland at the birthday party shows that this is not true. --StanislausJoe (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The described incident as documented in the entry is riddled with errors; In 'The JG 26 War Diary' by Don Caldwall the entry for 15 April (on page 126) states Galland took off in the afternoon for le Tourquet with lobsters and champagne for Osterkamp's birthday; and he detoured with his wingman over England, claiming 3 Spitfires shot down (Wing Commander WC Coote (not Warrant Officer), returned to base damaged and while Sgt Whewell, 266 Sqn. was shot down & wounded. 2 other Spitfires RTB with slight damage) Galland's landing gear dropped during the combat- which (quote) "caused an RAF pilot to claim its destruction ". this was F/L Finucane, who according to RAF/MOD claims records was the only RAF claimant. Finucane was at the time a flight commander with 65 Squadron. Galland made Le Tourquet without incident and presented the undamaged gifts to Osterkamp. Hope this clears up any confusion. Cheers Harryurz (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Page Dump

In November 1942 a promotion to Generalmajor made Galland the youngest officer to attain General rank in Germany. Galland was now responsible for deciding the ongoing tactical and operational doctrine of the Luftwaffe's fighter strategies. No longer flying operationally, one of his first tasks was organising the successful air protection for the Channel Dash of the German battle cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and the cruiser Prinz Eugen.

Galland inspecting a new aircraft design at Rechlin, 5–7 September 1943

On 23 May 1943, Galland flew an early prototype of the Messerschmitt Me 262, the world's first operational jet fighter. After the flight, he described his experience:

For the first time I was flying by Jet propulsion! No engine vibrations. No torque and no lashing sound of the engine propeller. Accompanied by a whistling sound, my jet shot through the air. Later when asked what it felt like, I said, "It was as though angels were pushing."

He became an enthusiastic supporter of this aircraft, realising its potential to be that of a fighter rather than a "Blitzbomber". However due to Hitler's determination and persistent problems with its turbojet engines, the Me 262 was not developed as a fighter fast enough. Galland hoped that the Me 262 would compensate for the numerical superiority of the Allies:

In the last four months [January - April 1944] our day fighters have lost 1,000 pilots...we are numerically inferior and will always remain so...I believe that a great deal can be achieved with a small number of technically and far superior aircraft such as the [Me] 262 and [Me] 163...I would at this moment rather have one Me 262 in action rather than five Bf 109s. I used to say three 109s, but the situation develops and changes.

During 1943, Galland became more involved with the organization of the air defence of the Reich against the increasing United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) day bombing offensive. As General der Jagdflieger, he had at his disposal a small staff flight operating Fw 190s. Galland was a supporter of attempts to develop heavily armed versions of the Fw 190, and add one to each of the nine Geschwader defending the Reich. In order to experience the operational conditions under which his pilots flew, Galland flew a dozen or so combat missions through 1942–44 and probably gained two more victories over USAAF B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bombers sometime during early 1944, although on one occasion, flying with Hannes Trautloft, he narrowly avoided being shot down by the USAAF escort fighters.

By mid 1944, the catastrophic aircrew losses suffered by the Luftwaffe prompted Galland to carefully husband a last reserve of 1,000 pilots and fighter planes in order to strike a potentially decisive single blow at the Allied bomber streams. However the daring operation, planned for late 1944, never came about, as the reserves were squandered in the ill-fated Operation Bodenplatte.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapi89 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 15 August 2010‎

Clarification needed between intro and body of article

In the introduction Galland is described as "Serving first as an instructor", yet this is not followed through in the section ===Into the Luftwaffe=== where it is mentioned that "during training" in October 1935 he crashed an Fw 44 - was he flying as an instructor? Was he an instructor when he crashed a year later? In total how long did Galland serve as an instructor? Secondly the intro says " Over the following years, Galland’s position as General der Jagdflieger caused his relationship with Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring to deteriorate." What does this mean? The way it is written it suggests that Galland's status alone caused the relationship to deteriorate - would it not be better to state that Galland and Göring's relationship deteriorated because of disagreements over doctrine, strategy and tactics? Minorhistorian (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The first point can be clearer. I think the last point is more than adequately dealt with and explained in the article. I think Minor' you've severely over-analysed. Galland's position as GDJ + disagreements over equipment + the disagreements over enemy capabilities + failure of Lw fighter defences = Göring very mad + Göring blames Galland. Dapi89 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded your earlier corrections in accordance with the sources. The disputes more down to armament and equipment than tactics, doctrine or strategy. In fact Goring came the conclusion in the autumn 1943 that a defensive strategy was needed, only for Hitler to reject it. So Galland and Goring were of one mind then. David Baker's book indicates the former was the cause of the sour relations. Dapi89 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just making sure: congrats on your work on this, another GA! cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Relative

My Name is Amy Galland and I am related to Adolf Galland on my fathers side of the family. So I came on here to learn more. According to my famlies history he was a double agent part of the plot to kill Hitler. I do not know if this is true and would like to know. My email is zooie8271@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zooie8271 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Amy is very un-Germanic sounding name.

I’m willing to accept what you’ve told us at face value. But I'm surprised you would need to come to Wikipedia to find information about a relation. As a relative I would have thought you would have unprecedented access to personal information of this sort.

As far as I know, Galland was not a part of any conspiracy. Galland, perhaps naively, believed the war to be aimed at recovering the lands lost to the 'Dictat' of 1919. In the early years, and I believe throughout the war, he supported the military campaigns accordingly. Galland never seemed to discuss Nazi-war crimes (according to author David Baker, whom he commissioned to write an authorised biography "Adolf Galland: The Authorised Biography", published in 1996). There was no discussion of Galland being a part of the Kreisau Circle – the organisation I assume you are referring to. There is an enormous amount of written literature on Galland. Had there been any indication of his involvement, it would have come to light by now, even if only in the shape of a rumour.

So it would seem he was not part of the 1944 July plot. Dapi89 (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Improper" link to Operation Sealion article

Could somone please explain to me how a link to an article with the entire Operation Sealion war game can possibly be "improper", when linked from text (about that war game) saying "which the Germans lost". You could argue that comment has no place in an article on Adolph Galland (I wouldn`t, but just for the sake of the argument), but if you accept that comment as being relevant, a link to an article with the entire result of the Operation Sealion wargame cannot possibly be irrelevant or "improper". My logic circuits cannot compute that one at all.--JustinSmith (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor who did that would be better able to answer, but perhaps the contention is that the linked web page isn't a true reflection of what is said in Sealion by Richard Cox, which it states as its source. (Hohum ^@) 17:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have that book and have read it twice, the article linked to is a reasonable summary of the wargame. I suspect that some esoteric Wiki rule about links may be at play here, which in my opinion, is ridiculous. If you got rid of all the info and links on Wikipedia which don`t comply with every abstruse rule they`ve got, there`d be hardly any of it left. In my experience, not that I`m saying that`s necessarily happening here, people quote these rules when they don`t like something in an article, for whatever reason. What should really count for any fact (or link) : A Is it relevant. B Is it interesting. C Is it correct. I shall wait a few days and if we don`t hear from Denniss giving reasonable grounds for his deletion, which I hope doesn`t rely on some obscure rule being applied out of context, I shall replace it. --JustinSmith (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

How is a web page by some wargames blogger in any way a reliable source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said above I have the book. The webpage is an accurate summary of the wargame. You`re free to read the book anytime (if you can get hold of it) and find I`m correct. It seems to me that you, and Denniss, are more bothered about scoring abstruse points than actually providing readers of Wikipedia with facts and information that they might find intersting. It doesn`t matter so much to me because, as I`ve said, I have the book and know all the details of that wargame, unfortunately other readers probably don`t have and may not know how to navigate to that page. I have better things to do with my time than enter into a reversion war with either of you, all I would say is I`d rather you didn`t do any of your esoteric editing on pages which I might ever want to read.--JustinSmith (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Then add a cite to the book and page number. That will satisfy everyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That`s a good idea. The only problem is it`s the whole book, not just a page number ! The book is "Operation Sealion" by Richard Cox ISBN090272617X, but that`s mentioned on the third line of the linked article anyway. Where and how should that source be placed on the Adolph Galland page ? --JustinSmith (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

See Template:Cite_book. If you have more questions, I will try to help. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Bennet Neil, I looked at that page and my eyes glazed over ! I`ll just leave it. Incidentally this unfortunate incident has at least encouraged me to look again at my own copy of "Operation Sealion". An absolutely fascinating book, you can`t put it down. I recommend anyone with an interest in history, particularly military history to read it, a side effect being that they`ll agree with me that the summary I linked to is, in fact, a faithful summary of it ! Regards --JustinSmith (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, it's pretty easy. Just add this after the sentence you want to source in the article, filling out the fields: {{cite book |title= |last= |first= |year= |publisher= |isbn= |pages=}} --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Neil, but even if I could work out how to do that (I`m not really an IT guy, depite having my own, very popular, website ! ), I don`t actually think putting a citation for the book, as opposed to a link to an article detailing what actually happened, is really worth it. The vast majority of visitors to this page will not have access to the original book, and even fewer the time to actually read it. What I`m bothered about is the readers, which is why a link to the actual Sealion article is really what`s important, in my opinion. It makes interesting reading does it not ? Regards --JustinSmith (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that link is that there's no indication of authorship, no way for readers to determine yes, this is a reliable source. By putting in a ref to a book we are saying that if you need confirmation then here's a book you can look up with an established author. I am sorry that our citation requirements are cumbersome for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Defining "Flying ace", and whether the Pope is catholic

This is to open a discussion on a recent edit. I deleted the detail in the Introduction, and repeated in the Condor Legion section, explaining what a flying ace was. This was reverted, with the explanation “a lay reader shouldn't necessarily have to go to a linked page to understand a key concept”.
It isn't a big issue, but I'm wondering what is so "key" about this concept that it needs to be included twice here, one of them in only the second sentence of the article. I accept that what is obvious to me isn't necessarily obvious to everyone, but the (obvious) solution is to include a link, so that anyone who doesn't know what a term means can find out, while those that do can read on without being side-tracked by (what are to them) irrelevancies. It shouldn't be necessary to write out “...the Pope (the head of the Catholic Church)...” in every instance, should it, when “the Pope...” will do? But if that is the case, why is it not necessary to explain "German", "Luftwaffe", "general", "Second World War", and "military aviator", as well? No less key, and no less opaque to some?
Second, from a practical point of view, if this information needs to be included here, it is no less the case for every other article on flying aces we have; for those from WWII that's 485 German, 119 US, 86 British, so far; not to mention those from WWI. Do we need to trawl through all those articles to add this information?
Third, being pedantic; defining an ace as five aerial combat victories (another key concept that should be explained, or at least linked) is a French idea, which spread to the British and the Americans In WWI, The German definition then was 10 victories, and in WWII Galland and other high scorers were simply referred to as "experts", with a complex points system adding up to awards like the Knights Cross. I'm kind of wondering whether the source knew this or (with a name like Uwe Feist, I presume he is German) has simply been misquoted. Anyway, that's my ha'penny-worth, Xyl 54 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Xyl. First off, as the guy who reverted your bold edit, thanks for following WP:BRD, which I've always considered a useful concept and which I don't think is employed nearly enough! Actually, I tend to agree with your reasoning and just link flying ace without further explanation in my British Commonwealth ace articles, but I have seen it spelt out in some German ace articles and wanted to give the main editor(s) of this article a chance to consider and comment (partly also because it's GA and has clearly had some eyes on it). I'm probably also influenced by the practice in many articles on Victoria Cross recipients of spelling out in the lead that the VC is "the highest decoration for gallantry 'in the face of the enemy' awarded to members of the British and Commonwealth armed forces", which has been accepted in many GAs/FAs. Anyway, I will be happy with whichever method consensus throws up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

I hadn't taken in that this had GA status: I'm generally of the opinion that changes to GA/FA pages should be discussed (or at least announced) beforehand, as the potential for disimprovement is that much greater.

I'm content to wait for a consensus on this also, as it is likely to affect other pages. I checked some of the other German ace pages; the top three don't have this explanation in the text, but 3 of the first 7 (the 'A's) in their category do have it. So there may be some work either way to make them consistent. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of this wording was a request by another editor at either A-class or FA-Class. I don't recall which article it was. The reasoning was "don't make me click" to figure out why this person is notable. This wording since then was worked into a number of articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Trouble is, that doesn't really solve the problem.

Galland is notable because he was a Luftwaffe "expert" with 104 aerial victories, not because he was an ace with 5 or more, and because he held the Knight's Cross. If the rationale is to avoid readers having to click on links to find out what things are, then those are probably more important terms to explain.

In an article which is already 109 Kb explaining what an ace is just seems like padding. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the last is a fair point. OTOH, just as a general observation, Galland is indeed notable for much more than simply being an ace, but in WP terms he would still be notable if he was only an ace. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A Huguenot refugee in 1792?

The Huguenots ran away from France in the late 17thand early 18th centuries. The surname is French, but my guess is that Galland's ancestors run away from the French Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.69.212 (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Some comments on the article

Leaving aside the discussion of sourcing above, I think that there is some justice in concerns that the article is overly favourable to Galland. For instance:

• "Göring refused. He demanded every raid be countered in maximum strength regardless of the size of the Allied fighter escort. According to head of production and procurement Erhard Milch, who was also present at the meeting, "Göring just could not grasp it."" - this text essentially argues that Galland's views were correct and Göring was mistaken. However, surely Göring had a point in that German cities needed to be defended from bombardment, especially given the heavy casualties and damage they were causing by 1943. Milch is a figure viewed very negatively by historians (who generally regard him as incompetent), so his assessment needs to be put in perspective.
• The article has lengthy coverage of Galland's "innovations", yet does not really address the fact that the main body of the fighter force was in such a state that, despite its large size, it was totally defeated over Germany in early 1944. To what extent was this Galland's fault? Was he looking to technological fixes when he should have been focusing on making his actual forces perform better? Or was he being served up with inadequately trained pilots and outdated fighters by the supporting services? Or was it both?
• "Galland reported that the enemy outnumbered his fighters between 6:1 and 8:1 and the standard of Allied fighter pilot training was "astonishingly high" - was this actually true? The German fighter force was vast, and able to replace its heavy losses in quantitative terms at least. As I understand it, while Allied fighter pilots were very well trained, the problem for the Germans was that theirs were increasingly not, and their aircraft were inferior.
• "Hitler proved too impatient" - this also takes the side of Galland. As the article later notes, some historians are also sceptical about his plans to not intercept raids until he could launch a major attack. When such major attacks were initiated, they weren't decisive: the Allied air forces were too large, and of much better quality.
• "the disastrous Operation Bodenplatte" - one of the major reasons this operation failed was that most German pilots were inadequately trained. To what extent was this Galland's fault?
• The 'self appraisal' section is useful, but how do historians assess Galland's command? Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

A start has been made, by introducing other sources. Dapi89 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nazism

I have removed this edit from the article. User:Buidhe used James Corum and his work to claim Galland had "Neo-Nazi" sympathies. This is a complete fabrication; Corum does not say Galland was a Nazi, at all. He does say he associated with Nazi Rudel, and implies others, who are not mentioned - presumably from the Luftwaffe. On JSTOR there is an article here], which identifies Jewish pilots, who were shot down, captured, interviewed by Galland, then invited into his inner circle and given honorary membership to JG 26. Odd behaviour for a supporter of Jew-killers. I wonder whether it says enough about his character to warrant inclusion? Dapi89 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI this is also reported on the Jewish virtual library online (to an extent). Dapi89 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

See here. Dapi89 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Dapi89:The telegram included the words "strong Neo-Nazi leanings", see the source I added to the article. FYI the research you are describing about Jewish pilots has been questioned on Talk:Robert Stanford Tuck with the editors concluding that there is not enough evidence that he was Jewish. It's interesting that you would cite the Jewish Virtual Library because Galland is mentioned in its article on Neo Nazism. Galland is also discussed in Gerald Steinacher's recent book Nazis on the Run and in Hunting Evil: The Nazi War Criminals Who Escaped and the Quest to Bring Them to Justice; perhaps this information should be incorporated. This book indicates that the Bundeswehr was particularly cautious about hiring former Luftwaffe pilots because the organization was known for its strong Nazi inclinations. buidhe 21:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, a misleading reply. Galland is not accused of being a Nazi on the website, is he. So why mention that?

I'm not saying Stanford Tuck was Jewish.

Did you actually look at the links? Dapi89 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Just looked at Steinacher. Not once does he say Galland was Nazi. Or a suspected Nazi. It does say he was connected to Rudel. Nothing about politics is mentioned. Dapi89 (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in Corum suggest Galland was Nazi. Just checked that again. Dapi89 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to believe Schmidt actually says that given the above sources that have been misquoted. Please provide a full quote. Dapi89 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Corum states that General Twining pointed out that Galland had associated with known Neo-Nazis to include Hans Ulrich Rudel and that Galland had worked in 1948 as an air advisor to the Perón dictatorship in Argentina (Rearmig Germany, p. 45) and in an essay in Militärische Aufbaugeneration der Bundeswehr (2011) as well as in an essay "Briefing statt Befehlsausgabe", published in Die Luftwaffe 1950 bis 1970 (2006) Wolfgang Schmidt quotes the commander of the US air force stating that there was strong, non-refutable evidence of Galland's "strong Neo-Nazi leanings" and his opinion that Nazism and militarism would rise again in Germany (eindeutiger, nicht widerlegbarer Hinweise auf Gallands "strong Neo-Nazi leanings" und dessen Auffassung, dass Nazismus und Militarismus in Deutschland widererstehen würden. 2011, p. 372). Because of that the German authorities decided not to enlist Galland's services for the new air force. Thus it is an important piece of information and a fact. There is no need to reargue the assessment by the American authorities. That case was rested in 1955.--Assayer (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not re-arguing the case, I'm trying to get the editor in question post what the sources actually say.

Right, so guilt by association. They thought he was a Nazi. That doesn't make him one. Nor does Corum say he agrees with their assessment. What about JSTOR and his 'association' with Jewish pilots? Dapi89 (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019 edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: rm "Galland's time in Argentina was running out" -- unclear what this means; other c/e. I forgot to mention in the edit summary that I also removed "...as a frank and honest statement" as it's unclear what this means either and sounds kind of POV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Tags

Most of the article's content relies on a single source:

• Baker, David (1996), Adolf Galland: The Authorised Biography, London: Windrow & Green, ISBN 978-1-85915-017-7.

Being an authorised biography, this source is unlikely to be independent of the subject. Given the WP:QS nature of the source, the level of detail in the article is undue. I've tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't see in WP:QS where authorised bios are considered prima facie problematic; this was not raised as a concern at the article's GAN, PR or ACR, nor does a spotcheck of the citations indicate that the work is being used to support extraordinary claims. I've removed the tags accordingly and suggest that any specific concerns be brought to the talk page for discussion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

By their nature, authorised biographies are sources that are not independent of the subject, and we cannot accept them to be neutral or suitable for statements rendered in Wikipedia's voice. Here's one example; here's how Galland's post-war (non-) role in the Bundeswehr is presented in the article:

• Galland returned to Germany and was approached by a commissioner for Chancellor Konrad Adenauer for the purpose of joining the new Bundeswehr now that West Germany was to join NATO as a military power. Galland joined with Steinhoff, and went over the proposal. However, France objected to West Germany's proposal for a pan-European defence pact and chose to go its own way. That changed the organisation structure of the German armed forces. (...) Galland now accepted he had been turned down as a potential leader of, or in, the new air force. Galland suspected that it was more to do with his technically illegal departure from Germany in 1948 and his association with Argentina, a state which was on poor terms with the United States, the dominant partner of NATO.

References

Here's the link to James Corum's Rearming Germany. It discusses how the Americans pressured the Germans to not appoint Galland, because of his alleged ties to Argentian neo-Nazi circles.

Also, his departure was not "technically illegal"; it was illegal. I believe that the reliance on this source leads to non-neutral statements and one-sided presentation, and that the tag is appropriate: "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral." Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Authorised biographies are generally fine, as long as they are not being used to support extraordinary claims. The tag just isn't appropriate. If you want to add material from Corum, no-one is stopping you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I could add details to the story why Galland did not join the Bundeswehr based upon an article by MGFA-historian Wolfgang Schmidt. According to him Galland was not very respected among the other generals of the Luftwaffe, not at least Kammhuber despised him. The Americans also pointed to Galland's "strong Neo-Nazi leanings" and so forth. Schmidt notes that Galland was deeply hurt when he learned of the decision against him and that until today (the article was published in 2011) his disappointment is used by apologetics to construct a "Galland-legend". Now my point is this: How likely is it, that Galland's authorised biography, based upon lengthy interviews, but with no information on sources and only explanatory footnotes, written by someone who has been described in an otherwise positive review as an admirer of Galland for many years, is also a critical biography, i.e. a biography which engages the myths, legends and ramifications surrounding and fostered by Galland? Moreover, since the article is almost exclusively based upon literature written by "aviation historians" who compensate their lack of historiographical training with enthusiasm and thus employ a certain POV, how can we work with that POV, so that we do not fall for the "Galland-legend"?--Assayer (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not up to us to determine how likely that is, authorised biographies are just that, but as I said, I see no extraordinary claims being made using it. BTW, you should add those details you mentioned. You and K.e. often state you have contrasting material, but rarely do I see it being added to articles. Stop sniping and contribute. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Why not? Is it ok to fall for a certain POV? The issue cannot be solved by simply adding some details. Or do you think that Schmidt's and Baker's account complement each other? To me it seems the latter does not relate the full story, to say the least. And whose story is it, that Baker relates? Given the nature of his work, i.e. the lack of sourcing and his close collaboration with Galland, it rather seems to be Galland's account than anybody else's. Are you not concerned that an article in the Wikipedia relies so heavily upon such a "first-party-source", so to speak? You and Ian Rose claim that there are no "extraordinary claims being made using it". How can you tell? For example, the article claims that Galland also recognised the innovation of drop tanks to extend the range of aircraft as well as the need for specialised tactics for escorting bomber fleets; Galland did not subscribe to the prevailing idea in the Luftwaffe (and RAF) that the bomber "would always get through" (alone). All of Galland's suggestions were adopted and proved successful in the early campaigns, 1939–41.[28] That's an extraordinary claim attesting to Galland's genius. If it is true, why did Galland himself mourn in his memoirs (1954) that drop tanks were not used during the Battle of Britain? There is more, but for now I would like to know, if you suggest that Baker is pitted against Schmidt or if you would agree, that there are some sources which are more reliable than others.

There are more questionable sources used for debatable claims, e.g., works by Galland afficionados like Donald Caldwell or even Galland's memoirs. If you check out the book by Philip Kaplan with its meagre bibiography and its lack of sourcing, that's well below the standards even of militaria works like the one by Caldwell. I do not see why I should add contrasting material instead of simply substituting or removing the questionable claims.---Assayer (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

We compare and contrast sources, we don't just delete the material from sources we don't like. Where they disagree, we highlight that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "we"? You and Ian Rose? Which sources did you use to verify the claims by Baker? Or do you just believe in the sources that you like? I do not use sources according to my liking, but try to figure out their quality and their POV. As a result some sources may turn out to be fringe or simply unreliable sources.--Assayer (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're personalising this. It seems quite clear that Peacemaker means that this is a not-uncommon WP practice. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I searched the archives of various policy / guideline pages and was not able to find anything specific on authorised biographies. However, WP:V#Talk has yielded this thread Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_40#Autobiography, with the following comments:

• "An autobiography is highly suspect as a reliable source of anything but the most basic facts. It is not a third party source, as we prefer to use."
• "it would (...) be a primary source for anything that relates to the author/subject, or any other topic or activity that the author was involved in. So it must be used with great care, like any primary source."

I would argue that authorised biographies are not that far off from autobiographies and same caution should be applied to both. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That is a complete canard. An authorised biography is not an autobiography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

In any case, autobiographies have been used as sources in several Featured Articles on Commonwealth soldiers, including Hastings Ismay, Richard Dannatt, and David Evans (the last-mentioned being one of my efforts). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth reflecting on the author and publisher of this book. If either has a solid track record, it seems reasonable to assume that the authorised biography can be considered a RS - unless there's commentary from experts arguing that it is not. As I understand it, 'authorised' biographies are typically books where the subject agreed to participate in the research, through interviews and/or providing primary sources. The subject does not necessarily then have any control over what the author writes. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The question is specific: Does Baker's biography of Galland qualify as a RS and in what regards? I do not care whether it's called "authorized" or not. That may have been just a marketing coup. But I harbor reservations about a biography which has been written by a well known admirer, is based mainly on interviews with Galland himself and devoid of any notes which would indicate sources. Besides, Galland's autobiography is frequently cited anyway, sometimes in conjunction with works by Baker or Caldwell (another admirer) which makes me wonder, whether Baker and Caldwell simply reproduce the stories taken from Galland's memoir.--Assayer (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What you "wonder" about Baker and Caldwell, what "may" have happened, etc is basically original research. I can't see where you have raised anything that questions the reliability of Baker as a reliable source other than your unsupported opinion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What you call "original research" is essential if you want to figure out whether a source is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. I take notice that you are not able (or not willing, for that matter) to provide any indication how you come to the conclusion that the source in question is not used for any extraordinary claims. Thus your strenous defense of Baker's work as a perfectly reliable source is unsupported. More issues have been raised by Nick-D below.--Assayer (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: evaluation of sources is not "original research". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I may add the resume from a review of the Baker bio published in the Times Literary Supplement [London, England] 10 Jan. 1997, p. 28:

• The publishers describe this biography, by David Baker, an aerospace engineer and aviation historian, as a story of the air war as seen from the cockpit. Based on hours of tape-recorded interviews with Galland towards the end of his life, it should certainly fascinate fans of flying, aircraft specifications and order of battle. Others may lament the lack of critical distance from its subject and an opportunity lost for a potentially fascinating study of hero-worship and myth-making in Hitler's Third Reich. It also lacks a bibliography.

I am certainly one of those who "lament the lack of critical distance", which makes this bio suspicious as a source.--Assayer (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Naval War College is not one of them. Check out Volume 50, Number 4 Autumn,Article 26 1997. Dapi89 (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating review by Barrett Tillman, according to which Dolfo [sic!] Galland leaves a great legacy: Confronted with the wrath of Hitler and Goering he "stood by his aviators, defending them from vilification as incompetents and cowards. In doing so he risked his life to preserve his self-respect. Goering had condemmned him to death, but Hitler intervened and sent him off to die in combat."[1] How come that no other sources support this story? In other words, that review is appalling. It is quite interesting, however, to read through Gordon Gollob, another A-class article by the same author, which differs considerably in the details.--Assayer (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That isn't the question. It is to look for reviews that do, or do not, support the quality of the work. What I think of them isn't really relevant. On your question: I have to ask, seriously, how well read you are on this specific subject. Galland was sent into combat, which at that stage was as good as a death sentence. Baker did not say that Goring ordered Galland's death. But he did want him court-martialled, with whatever punishment that may bring. Dapi89 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If a reviewer seriously misrepresents the “facts” he could easily have found in the book he was reviewing, the review is unreliable. Your romanticizing attitude towards certain German soldiers is an insult to the about 25,000 to 30,000 German soldiers who were actually sentenced to death by Wehrmacht ‘justice’, about 15,000 of whom were executed, not to mention the 1.5 million Germans who died between December 1944 and April 1945 fighting a lost war, while military police and SS units executed any soldier apprehended and suspected of desertion.--Assayer (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

A claim that doesn't hold any water. Where and how did I support the reviewer? Which soldiers have I glamorised? As you'll note, the article is heavily reinforced with good sources. As far as I can see, the only insult here is your opinion. Dapi89 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering why you did introduce that review in the first place, but we may as well discard it. Galland was, by any means, a privileged member of the elitist German air force. It is misleading to suggest that Galland was practically sentenced to death when he was ordered to command a Me 262 unit (the elite "Galland's circus"), while he had longed to fly combat missions during the war. I find edits such as this misleading, because, according to Corum,Göring lost his temper [...] when the fighters failed to intercept an Allied bombing raid and sent a message on 12 July that his pilots in France, Norway, and Russia regarded the German fighter pilots in Sicily with contempt. He railed that if improvements were not made in the attitude of the pilots, then personnel from commanders on down were to be sent as infantry to the eastern front. There is no reason to suggest that this was a constant threat by Göring. To write a sentence like The resources could not prevent the Allied air forces acting with impunity seems odd to me. Why should the Germans "punish" the Allies? That would mean to consider the Allies to be perpetrators, while the Germans had occupied Sicily. Moreover, what has all this to do with Galland? That's distraction rather than reinforcement. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to put Galland's efforts into perspective, for example, that his mission was considered a failure by Theo Osterkamp? ----Assayer (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I've re-read through the source. I don't accept it is misleading. I have not added anything that is not there, nor have I left anything out that distorts the meaning of the passage, or the point it is trying to make. I don't believe the passage reads that way. How can a threat not be constant? For as long as the situation wasn't improved, and it wasn't, then the threat is there. In any case, I refer back to my opening line. To the question of Axis impotence: Corum does say that. The air defences were not in a position to offer effective resistance.

What does this have to do with Galland? It shows his mission there failed. After Donnerkeil, this is was the biggest single assignment given to him. So I don't see it as a distraction, rather it reinforces the title of the segment - Galland's leadership was a failure. Is it appropriate to say that Theo Osterkamp regarded it a failure, when contemporaries, friends and foes, could also see that, as does practically all the literature since the war? That to me seems to be misleading. Dapi89 (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I am arguing on two different levels. First, Corum only briefly mentions Galland. It does not make much sense to write about Göring’s threats, with which mainly Richthofen had to deal, but virtually nothing about what Galland actually did on the island. So far it is not spelled out that Galland’s leadership was a failure. Rather it is called a “crisis” brought about outer influences. Second, is the question of language. I object to Allied air forces acting with impunity as inappropriate. --Assayer (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree:

• Virtually no Luftwaffe unit of any worth remained on the island as the invasion took place. It is appropriate.
• Goring's threats were made against fighter pilots, not bomber, or any other kind of pilots. Galland was responsible for them.
• Other influences? Galland had been in position for over 18 months. He had influence on procurement, training, tactics, organisation and deployment. It was Galland that poured in reinforcements to Sicily in the first place.
• There is more to follow on Galland's Sicilian campaign. It isn't complete. Dapi89 (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure whether we do not talk at cross purposes.

• From mid-May to early July 1943 the German fighters on Sicily were considerably reinforced. That they fared badly against Allied air superiority is not the point.
• Corum names Richthofen as the one who had to cope with Göring’s threats.
• Galland became Jagdfliegerführer Sizilien only in June 1943.
• Galland’s influence should not be overstimated. If one is to read (later) that The combination of declining production and attrition left Galland with a thin resource-base with which to defend Germany this is distorting, because Galland’s part in the operational management of the air defence of the Reich was limited.

We'll see how the article develops further.--Assayer (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is the point. Or why bother mentioning it. The Luftwaffe left German and Italian soldiers without air cover, and there was a substantial price in blood for that. One has to strike a balance of course. The case is the office of the General of Fighters failed. Galland played a part in it, but I think the article is clear there were other factors; it isn't implying Galland had fully responsibility for everything in the MTO. Richthofen was happy to let Galland take the blame for Sicily. That will be added in later. Specifically, Galland was sent there to improve supply, training efficiency and morale. He failed in all of them; he actually was a driving force in the fall of the latter - by parroting Goring. The question about resources: I don't think it is. Galland had plenty of influence in supply; eventually he was on the winning side in the debate on resources. It was procuring his preferred equipment that was the major problem. Dapi89 (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Change of infobox

Adolf Galland served in the position/office of Inspector of Fighters, therefore the infobox should be changed to Infobox officeholder, as to better show that position/office. Proposal can be seen here.Skjoldbro (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary reversing this change, I think the officeholder template is generally (and logically) used for holders of public office (i.e. politicians). It makes sense for former military people who held high public office, e.g. soldiers who became governors, president, etc, but not I think for those who only held significant military positions. For instance I've brought several chiefs of the Royal Australian Air Force to Featured status, and simply placed that position at the top of Commands field in the military person infobox, and that's always been considered satisfactory. Now you might argue that some high staff positions should be given a new Positions or Postings field within the military person infobox, but I don't think we should skew things by using what's primarily a civilian infobox for people whose notable positions were purely military. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)