Talk:Georg von Boeselager

Some of the original material which I translated (loosely, since I have little German) from German Wikipedia is showing up on a German-language July 20 Plot memorial website. I can't tell if that site is incoprorating material from Wikipedia, or the other way around, since neither cite their sources. I am going ahead and adding more information from library sources, which I hope to complete in the next few days.--Joe 03:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Topics

I still have a few more sources to incorporate, but I need some advice on issues I don't have the expertise or resources to investigate myself. Special topics for attention:

1. Boeselager image - German copyright status? (see note on image discussion page)
2. Copyright status of German article? (See note on discussion page, take a look at German article and Google some of its text)
3. Oberst shoulder board - same or similar to WWII-era insignia, or do we need a new image? It's similar, but different enough that we should upload the correct image.
4. "School for Shock Troops" in Krampintz. Currently it just links to Kriegschule - anyone know any sources for the specific school?
5. Cavalry Regiments Centre - I can't find any sources for details on this, but both the German article and one of my library sources say it existed.

Thanks for any help or advice you can give! --Joe 19:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Ooh, template forking! Any chance you could convert this to use {{Infobox Military Person}}? —Kirill Lokshin 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that template existed until your post. I kind of like the rank insignia portion and assignments sections, which add a nice touch, and as far as I know, there have been no films about him. And if the Poles get their own military template, then the Germans should too - we don't want to give them another war to fight, do we? --Joe 20:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we simply haven't gotten around to getting rid of the Polish one (plus, it rather predates the German, and is used on more articles). As far as I know, everything in this template can be done with the generic infobox; we're open to making changes if there's something specific it won't do for you. —Kirill Lokshin 20:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If we can add rank insignia and assignments (some personnel are assigned to schools, activities etc. and not "units" sensu stricto) to the generic template or find a way to display them then I have no objections to deleting it. --Joe 20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rank insignia can be included by adding a regular [[Image:Insignia.jpg|100px]] to the "rank" field (although I would recommend using a horizontal insignia if possible). As far as his assignments, the name of the field can be changed to something more vague, but might it be appropriate to use the "commands" field instead of, or in addition to, the "unit" field? —Kirill Lokshin 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help with those issues. Durova 23:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Relations

Searching for "Boeselager" with Google, I found a "Maximilian Baron von Boeselager" (1907 - 1945) who reportedly fought in World War II and was killed in action. Were they related? See: http://www.thepeerage.com/p9895.htm

Since he was a noble, I was wondering if we can find some of his connections/relations among the German nobility. User:Dimadick

Must be a cousin. In the German system, with a few late exceptions made in imitation of the British honours system, all children of a noble inherited the father's title, so the titles Freiherr, Graf etc. tended to proliferate more widely than in Britain. --Joe 09:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made all the citations I can from my English-language sources; the rest was translated from the German Wikipedia article, which did not contain citations. I have recently found an English language source that avers von Boeselager was executed by the Nazis; this source does not cite its own source and I am not certain of its reliability. I have no objection to this article being removed from the "Good Article" category until the matter can be resolved. --Jpbrenna 05:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review

This article has been sent for review. 74.116.113.241 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article dispute

As per the Good Article review on this article, it has been delisted. Primarily, the cleanup thing probably should get done eventually, and comphrehensiveness might be a problem too. Dispute archived at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 13. Homestarmy 19:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Article "Death and Legacy"

Statement "First Lieutenant von Boeselager". What "First Lieutenant"? At this time (July 1944) von Boeselager had been OberSTLeutnant since 1 December 1943, while a "First Lieutenant is equivalent to OberLeutnant (without the ST from OberST = Colonel)!!! Futher more all the different bomb plots (like the cavalry attack on the Wolfschanze) really need a citation! 151.136.147.71 (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that this wasn't a reference to his brother, Philipp? I believe the brother was an Oberleutnant at the time of operation Valkyrie. According to the cited source, Georg was promoted Oberstleutnant posthumously. Another part of the article says full colonel (Oberst) without citation. I am going to change this to lieutenant colonel. The cavalry charge has been changed already to simply "assault" in accordance with the sources, until someone can find a source that specifies whether it was an infantry or cavalry assault. (Both the Germans and Russians used horse troops on the Eastern front, but my understanding is that they were more like dragoons who moved and patrolled on horseback but dismounted to fight). Jpbrenna (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Schlabrendorff's memoirs

Regarding this [revert, with edit summary "Don’t see how Schlabrendorff, arrested by the Gestapo, could be considers an apologist, also there is a 1996 edition of the Hoffman source": diff.

Here's why the memoirs are apologetic. Copy & paste from the Arthur Nebe article:

The historian Christian Gerlach, writing about the 20 July conspirators and their complicity in war crimes of the Wehrmacht, calls Nebe a "notorious mass murderer". He discusses the role of Henning von Tresckow and his adjutant, Fabian von Schlabrendorff, who were members of the resistance and writes:

Schlabrendorff claimed that he and Tresckow had convinced themselves that "under the mask of the SS leader lurked a committed anti-Nazi..., who invented pretexts for sabotaging Hitler's murderous orders. We succeeded in saving the lives of many Russians. The Russian population often expressed their thanks to us". [...] According to Schlabrendorff, Tresckow personally brought Nebe to the army group [of conspirators]. Nothing was said about the 45,467 murder victims of Einsatzgruppe B by November 1941, the point at which Nebe returned to Berlin.

Gerlach doubts that Nebe falsified Einsatzgruppe B reports and puts Schlabrendorff's claims in the context of bomb plotters' memoirs and the then-prevalent assessments of the opposition group within the high command of Army Group Center: "Especially with reference to the murder of the Jews, [it is said that] 'the SS' had deceived the officers by killing in secret, filing incomplete reports or none at all; if general staff offices protested, the SS threatened them." Gerlach concludes: "This is, of course, nonsense."

References

• Gerlach, Christian (2004). "Chapter 6: Men of July 20 and the War in the Soviet Union". In Hannes Heer; Klaus Naumann (eds.). War of Extermination: The German Military In World War II. New York: Berghahn Books. ISBN 1-57181-232-6.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC )

More generally, in the period of about 2000-2010 there was a heated discussion about the reliability of the post-war autobiographical literature in a series of articles in the Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte. Some scholars, especially the younger generation, argued it was highly unreliable, others argued the opposite. The debate has generally died down since then, seemingly without reaching a consensus. I do remember reading that Schlabrendorff is generally considered reliable, unlike Gersdorff, Boeselager, and Gisevius. In general, it seems that WP and the mainstream media are lagging behind recent scholarship, and still reflecting the rosy myths of the Cold War period. My personal suspicion is that Schlabrendorff greatly embellished his own role and that of his associates, and downplayed/omitted their awareness of and complicity in war crimes, but unfortunately I'm not aware of any WP:RS to that effect. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Schlabrendorff’s book (4 editions including one by academic publishers Taylor and Francis) has been widely cited in 48 books. K.e.coffman should take it to WP:RSN rather than just unilaterally decide if a source is unreliable and delete material from the article on that basis. —Nug (talk)

Schlabrendorff's books are still autobiographical though. I don't think they qualify as WP:RS, nor does Valkyrie. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I get your point, but we need to find a WP:RS to back that suspicion. Regarding Gisevius’ account, this scholarly review states: “These circumstances lead us to attribute a high degree of reliability to Mr. Gisevius’ book”. —-Nug (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

One needs to do a lot better than a 1947 source (Heberle, Rudolf. Social Forces; Chapel Hill, N.C. Vol. 26, Iss. 1, (Jan 1, 1947): 352.) to attest to the reliability of the memoirs of a dubious figure such as Hans Bernd Gisevius. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Updating our list of sources

Hoffmann 1977 and Zeller 1969 are badly out of date, and should preferably be replaced by newer works. Unfortunately, there is no up to date equivalent of Hoffmann's book. A recent overview article by Winfried Heinemann calls it one of the main desiderata for further scholarship.

https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/organisation/weitere-bmvg-dienststellen/zentrum-militaergeschichte-sozialwissenschaften/20-juli-1944-86902

There is a 1996 edition of the Hoffman source which was extensively revised and expanded[1], and is used in the July 20 plot article. —-Nug (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)