Talk:Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf

message: Please note that Conrad is the family name.  --KF 21:17, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: thus we're actually talking Franz, Graf Conrad von Hötzendorf here... --Wetman 00:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a German book in front of me which dates from 1883, and it renders a similar name without the comma: Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz. Mackensen (talk) 05:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Dunno about what convention is now, but in Sondhaus, Lawrence: Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf. Architect of the apocalypse, the author references to Count Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf as "Conrad", not "Hötzendorf". Assuming he knows what he's doing, I edited the article in line with this usage. --Alþykkr (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutly correct, von Hötzendorf was added to the family name Conrad later. --Otberg (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If he was a "military genius" as claimed in the article, why was his performance in the war so dismal? Perhaps that claim should be dropped. LeoO3 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heavens, he's usually a figure of fun. Re-worded to reflect the reality of the situation. Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a very controversial figure in that regard. Both his allies (Hindenburg) and his enemies (Shaposhnikov) respected his ability in their own time. Modern historians are very critical of Conrad. My assessment is that he indeed was a very skilled general in a theoretical sense, but failed to take into account the reality of the Austro-Hungarian military; namely, that it lacked the logistics and the skilled officers at lower levels of command which were needed to execute Conrad's plans. When the Germans were involved, his plans worked because the Germans could execute them. When he only had his own forces, it didn't work. Just my view, though, so don't take is as gospel... Jsc1973 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military genius? 

message: Nowhere can I find any references to "the famous Vienna artist Kübler." Deleted. Sca (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Kübler

message: The term Armed Might is misleading and confusing. I am assuming here that the author of the article or an amender has 'split' and translated 'Wehrmacht' into a literal English equivalent. This is nonsensical. What Wehrmacht implies is the collective armed forces (itself a clumsy expression). The use of Wehrmacht in countless English language books etc. is thoroughly established and has become a recognised word in no need of translation.Gr1bble8s (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translated meaning 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support - per nom, we don't include personal titles in article titles. Parsecboy (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The article is currently a mix of different spellings (with "emphasize", "neutralize", etc., but also "defence") - I checked the first version, but that also had a mix (with "mobilization" but also "favour"). Or perhaps it's Canadian or Australian English, but I don't know exactly where those differ on British/American spellings. Parsecboy (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which variety of English does this article use? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion