# Talk:Erich Hoepner

It doesn't make sense! Hoepner couldn't have been present at the Bendlerblock that night of 20th July 1944, otherwise he would've been shot on the spot. It wasn't in Fromm's best interest to let somebody survive because they knew about his passive involvment. --89.177.43.141 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Erich Hoepner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060915115201/http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/22.09.2004/1359752.asp to http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/22.09.2004/1359752.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Did a long CE then got an edit conflict so apols. RV as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorted out a few sfn errors.Keith-264 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I did a partial revert of the new material; I kept "Early life" and up to the Army Group North. I also kept the new material on Hoepner's role in the 20 July plot. I'm preserving the material here by providing this link. 
The concerns are primarily about the tone and sources in the Barbarossa section. I would not use Mitcham for the operational matters on the Eastern Front or for his interpretations of the general's thinking. More on that below. David Stahel's excellent work is only cited twice, although he covers Hoepner and Panzer Group 4 in some detail: [1]. My reading of these sources suggests a different picture from what was added to the article, i.e. the nature of Kluge-Hoepner disputes or that the entire Panzer Group 4 reached within 20 km of Moscow, as the lead seemed to imply. It likely was strung out by a hundred kilometres; see Stahel's lecture on YouTube that explains the general situation of the German advance: [2]. The second citation to Stahel appears to have the wrong page, as p. 326 does not contain the material being cited to it. 
Circumstances around Hoepner's retreat order is more nuanced than what's presented: Richard J. Evans writes that Hoepner requested permission from Kluge, who advised that he'd discuss with Hilter and "ordered Hoepner to prepare for immediate retreat". Assuming that Hitler's permission was on the way and not wanting to risk the matter any longer, Hoepner ordered his troops to withdraw. When Kluge found out, he was "appalled and terrified at what Hilter might think" and immediately reported Hoepner, causing Hitler's fury. [3] 
On Mitcham: He received a pretty scathing review for another work on the Eastern front, The German Defeat in the East, 1944-1945; excerpt from the Journal of Slavic Military Studies:

It is no longer possible to write an acceptable history of the Eastern Front which relies solely upon German sources or obsolete interpretations from the Cold War era. (...) [The book] is of no use to specialists [and should] be avoided by non-specialists. (I can provide the review to anyone interested.)
Some other changes, i.e. to the lead and body, were unjustified, in my view, such as taking out the quote to Hoepner's order from 2 May 1941. This order is widely cited in the literature on Barbarossa and definitely belongs in the article. Another minor, point was the decorative icons in the infobox; please see MOS:ICONDECORATION. Listing the entire awards section in the infobox is not the common practice either, as infoboxes are generally reserved for the highest awards. I restored the prior awards section. 
I have Stahel on hand, so I'll look for additional material to add to the article in the next week or so. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I made further revisions; pls see diff.
Amber Books looks to be a small-time, militaria publisher, and Mann seems to be retelling what's in Sydnor anyway.
Zabecki p. 615 is a brief entry on Hoepner; it does not discuss “700 Soviet tanks” or “within 11 km to Leningrad”: [4]
I searched for [hoepner 700 tanks] and [4th Panzer Group 700 tanks] but have not found anything immediately apparent. I revised to match the source and replaced "700 tanks" with a general citation about Army Group North from Glantz. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


### Recent edit
I've elaborated on the changes to the article immediately above. I was not able to confirm some of the materials previously present in the article (700 tanks, etc). 
I have questions about some of the recent edits: diff. For example, the quote from Hoepner's order was removed with the edit summary: "Totally lacking a reference. Page number needed...". The reference was indeed provided for Hoepner's quote, including a page number: 

...Every military action must be guided in planning and execution by an iron will to exterminate the enemy mercilessly and totally. In particular, no adherents of the present Russian-Bolshevik system are to be spared.

For context, please see: Crimes of State Past and Present: Government-Sponsored Atrocities and and International Legal Responses edited by David M. Crowe: 

"On 30 March 1941, Hitler told his senior military commanders that he "wanted to see the impending war against the Soviet Union (...) as a war of extermination (...). Many Wehrmacht leaders...." Hoepner's quote follows.
Same in Burleigh who is cited in the article, but from a different book The Third Reich: A New History: 

"These [pre-Barbarossa] orders fed down the chain by senior commanding officers several of whom unreflectively elided Jews with Bolshevism. Thus, on 2 May 1941, General Erich Hoepner..." His quote follows.
A number of other sources make the same connection between the plans for the war of extermination and Hoepner's directive: 

"Many field commanders immediately echoed this in their own preinvasion directives. General Hoepner (...) advised his troops... In Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe by Mark Mazower.
"Another general who justified the coming was on the same grounds as Hitler was General Erich Hoepner..." The same quote follows. In The Policies of Genocide edited by Gerhard Hirschfeld. Etc.
I'm not sure what the objection is.
The following edit summary likewise lacks clarity: "No biographical notability asserted. What's the immediate relationship?". The material removed was: 

The staff and detachments 2 and 3 of Einsatzgruppe A, one of the mobile killing squads following the Wehrmacht into the occupied Soviet Union, were brought up to the Luga district with assistance from the army. "The movement of Einsatzgruppe A—which the army intended to use in Leningrad—was effected in agreement with Panzer Group 4 and at their express wish," noted Franz Walter Stahlecker, the commander of Einsatzgruppe A. Stahlecker described Wehrmacht's cooperation as "generally very good," and "in certain cases, as for example, with Panzer Group 4 under the command of General Hoepner, extremely close, one might say even warm." (emphasis mine).

The immediate relationship was the close cooperation between Panzer Group 4 and Einsatzgruppe A. I'm not sure what "biographical notability" is, but this material is certainly relevant to Hoepner's bio. This objection reminds me of the discussion at Talk:Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb#Leeb and Einsatzgruppe A, which I could not understand there either. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

All of which is fine as there isn't any real debate on the nature of the war in the east as propagandized by the regime. What all the provided references fail to provide is an actual tie between the assertion made in the article and Hoepner himself. To connect that many dots is synthesis on your part. To include the aforementioned sections requires reliable sources actually making that assertion. To simply lump in Hoepner with broad brush is not biographically relevant nor appropriate for Wikipedia. The discussion of on-the-ground cooperation between individuals of the Einsatzgruppe assigned to the same area of operations of Panzer Group 4 and individual elements of that Group fails to make a substantive biographical connection. Also, von Leeb is something I'm going to get back around to, when I have time. Both articles fail on the same merits. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@LargelyRecyclable: I'm not sure that I understand how this material is not biographically relevant nor appropriate for Wikipedia. Hoepner commanded PG 4, did he not? In the EG A material, he is mentioned by name.  Please also help me understand why the Hoepner May 1941 quote was removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


### Commissar order
Since there's been no response, I restored the changes with some revisions and additions; please see diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns. 
Separately, as there have been a number of attempts (1; 2; 3) to remove mentions of PG 4's implementation of the Commissar Order, here are sources that I added to the article: 

"The Commissar Order was executed with particular diligence at Hoepner's Panzergruppe"
"172 commissars had been executed by July 19" [by Panzer Group 4]
They provide details and specific dates / numbers. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


### Lead
I reverted changes to the lead that were introduced in this edit, as the previous version better summarises the body of the article. Also, the content is problematic; sample:

...During Operation Barbarossa Hoepner commanded the 3rd and 4th Panzer Groups. While in command of the 4th Panzer Group, Hoepner's troops came within sight of the Kremlin during Operation Typhoon...
Hoepner did not command PG 3, to the best of my knowledge. "...within sights of the Kremlin..." is not discussed in the body of the article. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Erich Hoepner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Euryalus (talk · contribs) 02:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm looking forward to the review. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for slight delay - having a busy day. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I have some comments:

Text

Suggest using his full name in the first sentence
"the son of General Kurt Hoepner" He was the son of Generaloberst Dr Kurt Hoepner (1858-1925). His father was a physician.
Why not mention his mother,   Elisabeth Auguste née Kienast? Or his siblings?
Should Rittmeister be italicised? And Totenkopf?
Link Sudetenland Crisis
"Upon his rival Heinz Guderian's assumption of command of the XIX Corps; Hoepner replaced him as the commander of the XVI Army Corps" Replace the semicolon with a comma. Are we going with "Corps" or "Army Corps"? Pick one. (The former is the usual form in English; Armee Korps is German)
Why not link to the German version XIX Corps?
Operation Barbarossa is linked twice.
The navbox says he cassumed command of the 4th Panzer Group on 15 February 1941
" Such "blinkered thinking" on Hoepner's part was common among the German commanders, which in Stahel's opinion "even before it began, made little practical sense"" Even before what began?
"Panzer Group 3" and "Panzer Group 2" should be "3rd Panzer Group" and "2nd Panzer Group" for consistency.
The last part is the first time you mention his wife Irma née Gebauer, daughter Ingrid and son Felbert, but do not name them
He still has streets named after him
Typos

"Hoepner's Panzer group" should be "Hoepner's panzer group"
"promoted to the rank of Generalmajor" should be "generalmajor"
"Panzer unit" should be "panzer unit"
"the rank of Generaloberst" should be "generaloberst"
"The 4th Panzer group headed" should be "The 4th Panzer Group headed"
"the 4th Panzer Group group" should be "4th Panzer Group"
"air corp" should be "air corps"
"Hoepner pursued a policy of scorched earth, demanding "ruthless and complete destruction of the enemy."" It is in the source, but that's not what scorched earth means.
" the south flank of the 4th army" should be " the south flank of the 4th Army"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Some comments:

Text

Suggest using his full name... --> "Erich Hoepner" is the full name in the sources that I used; sample: [5]
"the son of General Kurt Hoepner" He was the son of Generaloberst Dr Kurt Hoepner (1858-1925). His father was a physician. --> don't have this detail in the source used; seems fine.
The last part is the first time you mention his wife Irma née Gebauer, daughter Ingrid and son Felbert, but do not name them --> Sources I used do no discuss his mother or siblings.
Should Rittmeister be italicised? And Totenkopf? --> It's a matter of style; I prefer to avoid italics. "Totenkopf" is a proper name in this context, not a foreign word, for example.
Link Sudetenland Crisis --> fixed
"Upon his rival Heinz Guderian's assumption of command of the XIX Corps; Hoepner replaced him as the commander of the XVI Army Corps" Replace the semicolon with a comma. Are we going with "Corps" or "Army Corps"? Pick one. (The former is the usual form in English; Armee Korps is German) --> "Army Corps" and "army corps" is common in English-language sources; sample.
Why not link to the German version XIX Corps? --> fixed
Operation Barbarossa is linked twice. --> fixed
The navbox says he cassumed command of the 4th Panzer Group on 15 February 1941 --> it appears that Hoepner was already commander of PG 4 on 15 Feb 1941, as per this source: [6]; it's possible that he "reported" to CinC on the same day as his appointment (?).  Mitcham says "17 Feb": [7].  In any case, he was appointed at some point around February 1941; I don't think it's critical to note exactly when. I've changed the date in the command box to February 1941.
" Such "blinkered thinking" on Hoepner's part was common among the German commanders, which in Stahel's opinion "even before it began, made little practical sense"" Even before what began? --> fixed
"Panzer Group 3" and "Panzer Group 2" should be "3rd Panzer Group" and "2nd Panzer Group" for consistency. --> fixed, apart when appears in direct quotes
The last part is the first time you mention his wife Irma née Gebauer, daughter Ingrid and son Felbert, but do not name them --> The relatives are non-notable, so I don't feel that the article needs to name them.
He still has streets named after him --> I'm only seeing primary sources for "erich-hoepner-straße"; this does not appear to have been noted by secondary sources.
Typos

"Hoepner's Panzer group" should be "Hoepner's panzer group" --> fixed
"promoted to the rank of Generalmajor" should be "generalmajor" --> I prefer capitalisation, as in the sources I used; sample: [8]
"Panzer unit" should be "panzer unit" --> replaced with "armoured unit"
"the rank of Generaloberst" should be "generaloberst" --> prefer capitalisation; pls see #2 above
"The 4th Panzer group headed" should be "The 4th Panzer Group headed" --> fixed
"the 4th Panzer Group group" should be "4th Panzer Group" --> fixed
"air corp" should be "air corps" --> fixed
"Hoepner pursued a policy of scorched earth, demanding "ruthless and complete destruction of the enemy."" It is in the source, but that's not what scorched earth means. --> fixed
" the south flank of the 4th army" should be " the south flank of the 4th Army" --> fixed
I've implemented various changes as noted above. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions
A few more in addition to Hawkeye7's excellent response:

Should the lead include a clasue explaining the Commissar Order? Might be helpful to the casual reader to explain what it was.
“ending the war as a cavalry officer” – as opposed to a staff officer? On first reading I thought the emphasis here was on the word “officer” and was puzzled as to why we were saying this as he was a lieutenant as long ago as 1906. Not a critical issue, but worth considering if it's clearer to say something like “ending the war as a member of the cavalry” or "ending the war as part of a cavalry unit."
Interwar period: Is the link to “Generalmajor of the Wehrmacht” correct given this is a Weimar rank?
“an early Panzer unit that was…” – can we say “an early tank unit that was ..” to avoid using Panzer twice in the same sentence? Or is that too general?
As with "Commissar Order, is it possible to add a couple of words on the Blomberg-Fritsch Affair, as readers won't imemdiately know what this is
None of the above are critical issues (except maybe the generalmajor link, if its inaccurate), just suggestions to improve comprehension for non-expert readers like myself. Will have a few more a little later. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Added.
Modified to just state that he ended in the cavalry. I believe the relevance here is that the early proponents of mechanised and armoured warfare were often officers from the cavalry.
Generalmajor: the same rank system (pretty much) was used in the Reichwehr and the Wehrmacht, so I don't think this needs to change.
Modified.
Added.
K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Last comments:

Would remove “criminal” before Commissar order because it sounds as if that is Wikipedia’s voice, and also duplicates the end of that sentence re contravening laws of war. (btw would be good to clarify what we mean by “laws of war’ – ie what convention or international agreement set these laws in this instance). Alternatively, we would need a specific source for “criminal” as it has a particular meaning beyond violation of a convention – criminal under what national or international law?
Given the significance of the Commissar Order in this biography (mentioned in detail here and in the lead) it would be good if there was more on why Hoepner acted this way – did he feel it was justified? Was he “just following orders” (unusual for someone previously indicated to be opposed to SS-style butchery); was he a fervent anti-Communist? Not critical to include this, as its obviously limited by the sources and this is a GA review not an FA. Just flagging it as something that occurred to me a point of interest in reading the article.
Last sentence of paragraph two – should there be a “However” before “the army group defeated the defending …”? Otherwise we have the German advance halted at Luga and then suddenly the Germans winning the wider contest.
Do we know what happened to his family after the war?
Overall, this is a comprehensive summary of Hoepner’s military career, with some interesting additions and quotes on his views and interpretations of different stages of activity. It would have been good to have a bit more about the nam as an individual (ie not just a soldier), and some further background on his early life. But we’re obviously limited by the sources we have, which seem fairly comprehensively reviewed.
Views welcome on the largely trivial additions above. Also made some minor changes directly to the article, let me know if these seem unsuitable. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Comments:

Commissar order: This and other pre-Barbarossa orders are described as "criminal orders" in literature: Criminal Orders, in Hitler's Wehrmacht, 1935-1945 by Rolf-Dieter Müller and same in From World War to Waldheim by Richard Mitten. Or same in Nazi Policy on the Eastern Front, 1941: Total War, Genocide, and Radicalization by Felix Römer. The killing of the Red Army political officers is described as "murder", i.e. Rutherford on Quinkert, 'Propaganda und Terror in Weißrußland 1941-1944'. A number of Wehrmacht generals were convicted for drafting, transmitting or approving the order, so "criminal" is a neutral descriptor in this case. However, it's indeed redundant, so I've moved it.
Hoepner's stance: His thinking, i.e. "no adherents of the present Russian-Bolshevik system are to be spared", was closely aligned with that of Hitler in terms of the "war of extermination". Many authors have made this connection; see additional examples in: Talk:Erich_Hoepner#Recent_edit. I believe it's covered in the section Erich Hoepner#War against the Soviet Union:
[Hoepner's May 1941] order was transmitted to the troops on Hoepner's initiative, ahead of the official OKW (Wehrmacht High Command) directives that laid the groundwork for the war of extermination, such as the Barbarossa Decree of 13 May 1941. The order predates the first OKH (Army High Command) draft of the Commissar Order. Jürgen Förster wrote that Hoepner's directive represented an "independent transformation of Hitler's ideological intentions into an order" and illustrated a "degree of conformity or affinity" between Hitler and military leadership, which provided a sufficient basis for collaboration in the aims of conquest and annihilation against a perceived threat from the Soviet Union.
Did this not come across in the flow of the article? In any case, all corps-level units and ~90% of divisions implemented the order, so it was not extraordinary and was perhaps viewed as a "necessity". Although it's somewhat incongruent with Hoepner's behaviour on the Western Front, as you point out. Interesting observations here from the Rutherford review (abridged):
The commissars occupied a special place in this propaganda. One [Wehrmacht] position paper from 1935 suggested the use of the following slogans to be directed towards Soviet conscripts: "Turn your bayonets around and fight with us against the damned Jewish commissars" (p. 47). Already, six years before the Commissar Order was drafted and distributed to the Ostheer, commissars had been targeted for death by at least one section of the German army.
According to Quinkert, this line of thinking directly led to the formulation and implementation of the Commissar Order. The political and military leadership believed that murder of Soviet commissars would both destabilize the Red Army and ensure a far easier occupation of the eastern territories, as no one would lead civilian resistance in the rear areas. In other words, the murder of Soviet commissars was understood as what Quinkert describes as a "preventative defensive strategy against the guerrilla war [Kleinkrieg] in the rear area" (p. 59). While her claim that that the German military carried out this order not merely for ideological reasons, but also for "independent pragmatic motives" is not entirely novel, it is certainly convincing and it provides evidence of a German army prepared to contravene the established rules of war long before the opening of Operation Barbarossa.
Fixed.
Family: I don't know; sources do not mention that. I assume that they were released / liberated.

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Not entirely convinced re the wikilink of Hopner's Weimar rank to a page for the equivalent Reich one; but not enough to hold up a GA review.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Fine for the purposes of GA, as a summary of Hoepner the soldier. Would need more on Hoepner the person to meet this equivalent criteria in A or FA review. COuld sometimes do with more context about why he adopted certain military strategies, though I note a) the reality that for controversial figures the need for scrupulous accuracy can sometimes lead to a less enlightening article; and b) some apparent limitations in the sources.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
A detailed summary of the military figure, with some interesting background elements. Thanks to Hawkeye7 for the comments above.-- Euryalus (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"His wife, daughter, son, sister and brother were sent to Ravensbrück concentration camp." Cannot be correct, this camp was for women; please revise per RS source. Kierzek (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out; I made the revision with this edit. Sources: Family Punishment in Nazi Germany: Sippenhaft, Terror and Myth by Robert Loeffel (already in use in the article) & Ravensbruck: Life and Death in Hitler's Concentration Camp for Women by Sarah Helm. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits have created large holes in Hoepner's activities prior to his transfer to the Moscow front. Additionally, the context for his movement on the Eastern Front have been removed. Why? Justifications on the Talk page seem lacking. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The information that was added by LargelyRecyclable in this edit, ostensibly cited to Zabecki, failed verification:
Pushing east from positions in East Prussia Hoepner split his forces and met oncoming Russian armored forces at the Battle of Raseiniai, where the Germans first encountered the Soviet KV heavy tank. Despite the superior Soviet tanks and numbers Hoepner's 4th Panzer Group destroyed over 700 Soviet tanks, nearly the entirety of the Northwestern Front's armored forces, and advanced across the Daugava river. Hoepner advocated for an aggressive attack on Soviet positions in Leningrad and led his forces to within 11 kilometers of Leningrad before being halted by Soviet forces.

Here's Zabecki p. 615: it's a brief entry on Hoepner [9]; it does not discuss “700 Soviet tanks” or “within 11 km to Leningrad”. That's either OR, with citation appended after the fact, or misrepresentation of the source. I've removed this content, but will look in other sources for the early Barbarossa phase / advance on Leningrad. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
This paragraph has also failed verification, as Stahel p. 326 does not contain this content:
Hitler then ordered a siege of the city, transferring Hoepner and his units to Army Group Center to assist in Operation Typhoon, the German plan to take Moscow. The slow progress toward Leningrad made by Army Group North left Hoepner frustrated and fed into his serious doubts about the viability of the coming offensive toward Moscow so late in the year. He was consoled by Albert Kesselring, an old friend of his, and was eventually convinced the plan would work.

It's unclear where "...frustrated..." and "...serious doubts..." came from, as it was not in Stahel. But, as I said, I will look elsewhere. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Here are some additions diff. I will look for more info on Aug - Sept operations. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added more material here: [10]. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that the German ranks be consistent within the article. There is lieutenant, General of the Cavalry and Generalmajor at present. The lack of equivalence between the US or British Major General and the German Generalmajor (the same applies to Generalleutnant) mitigates against anglicising German ranks, so I suggest rendering them all in the German with US (or British) equivalents in parentheses after them. This has been common practice in the past on en WP. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My preference is to go with what the underlying articles are named. They are, for example, General of the Cavalry (Germany) and Generalmajor. I did, however, pipe "Generalmajor" to Generalmajor#Generalmajor of the Wehrmacht to be more specific. Hope this works. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit summary did not make much sense to me: "opinion not fact, there are much older and better references". First, that's an opinion by a notable historian, so I find it to be WP:DUE. Second, "much older" does not necessarily mean "much better" references. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

did stahel invent this sentence or did he get it from somewhere? if he invented it its unscientific. if he got it from somewhere it should be referenced. it is very ok for a book, which needs to tell a story captivating, needs to be sold. but such text, placed out of context into an ecyclopaedia, is excessive, unnecessary, and not neutral. WP:SPECULATION. to give another example of the strange citation style here. the wikipedia article states "Hoepner and Guderian blamed slow commitment of the south flank of the 4th Army to the attack for the German failure to reach Moscow. Stahel wrote that this assessment grossly overestimated the capabilities of Kluge’s remaining forces." the first idea is to verify what, where and when hoepner and guderian did say this. the reference is missing. then stahels assessment follows, and is referenced. this is not the way citations work. if the article would be discussing stahels book, it would be ok. but it discusses the persons opinions 70 years ago. e.g. hürter, 2007, states it quite factual in comparison, with deep references, pp 296 ff.--ThurnerRupert (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@ThurnerRupert: your recent edit has been challenged. Please self-revert, so that we can discuss. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

am a little unsure now. which protocol are you following? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I was following WP:BRD. Now we can discuss. I'm fairly certain that Stahel did not "invent" it. I have the book on hand and I'd be happy to look stuff up in it. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

ah, interesting, good to know. brd. i like it - but these wikipedia persons - writing 10 pages about it as anybody would have the time to read all of that. 10% of the lenght max would be ideal :) back to stahel: the sentence i removed, where did he get it from? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Stahel writes: "The reckless optimism within the OKH was in stark contrast to the dire warnings emerging from the lower ranks, which spoke of deplorable conditions for the men and declining combat readiness. Yes the position of OKH was bolstered by the steadfast determination, and often excessive confidence of men like Hoepner, Reinhardt, Guderian and Kesselring..." etc. Prior to that he quotes Hoepner's correspondence:
In a letter home, Hoepner stated that just two weeks of the frozen ground would allow his troops to surround Moscow, not taking into account the stiffening Soviet resistance and the condition of his units.

So it's not clear to me that this attributed opinion is controversial or undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems that his father was that Kurt Hoepner (1858-1925), a prussian medical officer and (finally) Generaloberarzt (surely not at Erich Hoepner's birth, at age 28). dhm.de also says that his father was a Sanitätsoffizier, medical officer. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Michael Burleigh writes the order from Hoepner as follows:

 The objective of this battle must be the destruction of present-day Russia and it must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity.
On the German page for Hoepner, historian Förster writes the order as follows (presumably in original German):

 Dieser Kampf muß die Zertrümmerung des heutigen Rußland zum Ziele haben und deshalb mit unerhörter Härte geführt werden.
In what world should "Zerstrümmung" be translated as something other than fragmentation, disintegration or comminution, the smashing or the shattering? Even if Michael Burleigh had gone with the interpretation based on the word zerstrümmern, he would get to smash sth. to break sth. to pound to shatter, to break sth. into splinters, to break to smithereens. But I am not trying to introduce original research here. The fact is the secondary source which Michael Burleigh quotes is in Ueberschar and Wette (eds), Der deutsche Uberfall auf die Sowjetunion p. 258. This secondary source does not offer the interpretation Burleigh does. Therefore, I would suggest the quote should be changed to the original and correct translation, or the article should say something like "Burleigh writes" or "according to Burleigh", because Burleigh's translation of the quote is not that of a secondary-source scholarly consensus if Förster, cited on this page, does not adopt the same interpretation as Burleigh and the other secondary source contradicts Burleigh's words.--Justforthisthing (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"[Hitler] stated that "wanted to see the impending war against the Soviet Union conducted not according to the military principles, but as a war of extermination" against an ideological enemy, whether military or civilian. Many Wehrmacht leaders, including Hoepner, echoed the sentiment."
Hoepner issued an order to his troops instructing them to treat the "loyal population" fairly, adding that "individual acts of sabotage should simply be charged to communists and Jews"
What is going on here? --Justforthisthing (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)