Talk:Hermann Hoth#Generalmajor and Generalleutnant

I don't have a book source for his dates, and online sources give birth years ranging from 1885 to 1893, and death day as either the 25th or 26th of January, so I made guesses about what seemed most plausible. If someone has a reliable printed source, please check on these, thanks... Stan 21:39 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

States explicitly that the picture of him and Guderian on this page is dated in July 1941, which contradicts the caption saying it is the "day before Barbarossa." I don't know which is true, but my opinion is the external source should be believed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.6.71 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In Star Wars Episode 5 "The Empire Strikes Back" there is a battle on the ice planet Hoth. Does anyone know if that planet is named after Hermann Hoth? Because Hoth is an ice planet, and Hermann Hoth fought a battle in the ice desert of Stalingrad. George Lucas said in some interviews the Galactic Empire was modeled after Hitler's Germany in World War 2. And the Star Wars Stormtroopers (the bad guys) look very much like Nazis. Any film experts here? 93.219.174.253 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I can only read THREE ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.12.41.99 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article, by reducing the amount of uncited and / or non-notable detail. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well cited. B2=No for the following reasons. Some battles (ex: Battle of Voronezh) are listed in the infobox but not mentioned in the narrative. Many of the battles are mentioned only in one sentence. While a single sentence may be appropriate (for lack of data) for battles where Hoth's forces had minimal involvement, it seems that more description is needed for the battles in general. I've found that, if you cannot write very much about a general, you can certainly write about what his military units were doing in the various battles (ex: captured city X, outflanked the 999th Guards Division, formed the southern pincer, consisted of Panzer Divisions 1, 2 and 3, etc.). There is a large body of WW2 military history where this information can be found. Also, I tend to be a more critical reviewer than average, so you can always resubmit your article next week. Djmaschek (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hermann Hoth. 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/20161007091533/https://kuecprd.ku.edu/~upress/cgi-bin/978-0-7006-1826-2.html to https://kuecprd.ku.edu/~upress/cgi-bin/978-0-7006-1826-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• P1090079.2b7j3k9lnef440ocswo440gw4.ejcuplo1l0oo0sk8c40s8osc4.th.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Talk:Hermann Hoth/GA1}}

G'day, it is quite odd to nominate a biographical article about a military person (who did little else in his life and is only notable for his military role, including as a war criminal) as World history rather than Warfare. I don't watchlist the GA noms on World history, and only came across this via tps. In future, it would probably be preferable to nominate such people who are unambiguously military under the Warfare subtopic. This will also ensure that the military aspects of the article are not underdone in terms of the GA assessment. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the German World War II era Generalmajor is equivalent in rank to a brigadier general and the Generalleutnant is equivalent to a major general, while the literal translations suggests otherwise. This "ambiguity" in translation can therefore create misunderstandings and confusion. I therefore suggest to provide the reader both its semantic translation and its literal translation in order to make the reader aware that the translation provided in the article was made in full understanding of this duality. In consequence, I recommend:

• Generalmajor (brigadier general—{{Literally|major general}})
• Generalleutnant (major general—{{Literally|lieutenant general}})

In my example, the translation has two parts, first the rank equivalent translation followed by the literal equivalent translation. Thoughts? MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

:I strongly disagree. The "literal equivalent translation" (whatever that is supposed to mean) does not in any way help the reader. Anyone with reasonable English can infer the fact that the translation of the word from German to English is essentially the reverse ie Generalmajor means major general. But actually writing that is not helpful, because it undermines the preceding explanation of what the actual equivalent rank was. What is helpful to the reader is the actual equivalent in Anglo-American armies of the period, which is as you have described. If it needs to be clarified with a citation to avoid editors who do not know the facts changing it to the literal translation, then we should use a note which explains the equivalence with a citation to support it. See Operation Rösselsprung (1944)#Notes for an example which has passed FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

:: Unfortunately, like in my case, my English is very weak and I rely heavily on tools like google translate or [https://dict.leo.org/german-english/generalmajor leo.org]. In consequence, I frequently fall into the trap of literal translations. I require more help than anyone with "reasonable English" skills. Your strong view on this matter prevents me to better understand the issue. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

::: I believe that the sentence "Anyone with reasonable English can infer...general" is not only rude but it's probably not accurate. It's certainly no way to inform a reader, assuming that they can "infer" a different language's structure. Sammy D III (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

: {{re|MisterBee1966}} I'm also opposed to adding a literal translation, as I do not see how it would be an improvement to the article (or to the reader, regardless of language ability or background). But as someone who does a lot of translations and is sensitive to cross-language (and cross-cultural) issues among the Wikipedias, I would like to understand better where the problem lies, as you see it, to see if it could be something that other non-native speakers of English would also feel is an issue that we should address.

: Let me ask you this: is the problem that when you see, "{{xt|Generalmajor (brigadier general)}}", you think to yourself, "Maybe they got the translation right, but people won't believe that the non-literal translation is the correct one, so maybe if we add the literal translation as well, it will show that they are aware that the literal translation exists but chose not to use it because it was not the right one." ? If that's your thought, then I'd say that the best solution for this is to link a (hopefully sourced) table of Army ranks with equivalents in various European languages; and if there isn't such a table, there ought to be (hint, hint) but as an alternative, one could add a new reference with a citation to a book or other source that shows the equivalencies of German and English words for ranks in the various armies concerned (keeping in mind that ranks may not necessarily be identical in the armies of UK, US, Australia, Canada, and other English-speaking nations). Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

::: {{ping|Mathglot}} The "issue" for me is, a German Major translates to "major", Oberstleutnant to "lieutenant colonel", Oberst to "colonel", and I start recognizing a language pattern. Then I come across Generalmajor and I would expect to read "major general" but no it states "brigadier general". I then go to [https://dict.leo.org/german-english/generalmajor leo.org] and leo.org tells me a Generalmajor is indeed a "major general", so I assume the article is incorrect. My point being, the reader benefits if both the semantic translation, which is "brigadier general", and the linguistic translation, which is "major general", is given. I tell the reader that yes, you understood the language translation correct but there is more to consider. Does this make things clearer? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

:::: {{re|MisterBee1966}}, yes, what you are saying is clear to me now. I'll just respond once here, and if you need to discuss further, let's take it to another venue, because this risks being off-topic for this talk page about Herr Hoth. This is a linguistic issue, not an issue of understanding ranks of military forces across countries.

:::: You have attempted to understand the meaning of a compound noun in English by deconstructing it, analyzing the meaning of the parts taken separately, combining those meanings, and positing the combined meaning as the probable meaning of the original compound noun. This works most of the time, but not always, and sometimes it can lead you wildly astray. In order to illustrate this, I'll give you an example on one end of the continuum of false meanings of compound words. Consider the meanings of parkway and driveway (in the American English sense). Now consider the observation: "You park your car in the driveway, but you drive your car on the parkway." See the problem? Your case is more complex because of the additional factor of translation, but if you make an analogy between your analysis of Generalmajor and resynthesis into Major general, I think you'll see the similarity to the parkway/driveway example. I can understand why you would fall into this fallacy, because in German you can do often do this kind of analysis/synthesis of German compounds and it works perfectly well,{{efn|name="Donaudampschiff"}} so why wouldn't it work just as well in English? If you need further explanation, please let's take this discussion either to your talk page, or, perhaps better, to WP:Reference desk/Language where other editors will see it there and may respond as well. Please {{tl|ping}} me, if you do. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

::::: Point taken, but there is a subtle difference here. Taking your example of parkway/driveway, unlike Generalmajor which gives me "major general", if I take these words to leo.org it renders for parkway a Schnellverkehrsstraße [fast driving street] which leaves little room for misinterpretation MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

:::::: You missed the point. O/t; cannot comment here further; take it someplace else, if you wish. Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

:: Maybe linking Ranks of the German Bundeswehr#Table of ranks or Comparative army officer ranks of Europe? Or, you could add an explanatory note{{efn|name="uk-de ranks"}} as an explanation. Does that work for you? Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

::: Uh-oh, now that I've linked that table, there appears to be a problem somewhere, as it gives the literal translations that, apparently, are the wrong ones, at least according to this conversation. So maybe those tables also need updating? I'm afraid I'm not an expert in this area, but it shouldn't be that hard to source the proper translations in the an appropriate source. Peacemaker67, any thoughts about this? Someone please ping me if a discussion gets started at one of the template Talk pages of those templates, or maybe at Talk:Comparative army officer ranks of Europe. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The rank of Brigadegeneral was added to the Bundeswehr to bring it into line with other NATO countries. When talking about World War II, we have to consider the ranks then. The British Army no longer has a brigadier general rank. Brigadier is sort of equivalent, but a brigadier general is a general and a brigadier is not. So we immediately have a problem in that brigadier general will not be meaningful to many English-speaking readers. During World War II, a British brigadier commanded a brigade, which was equivalent to a German or American regiment. In the German Army, regiments were normally commanded by an Oberst; in the US Army, by a colonel. The US Army had a brigadier general rank, but a brigadier general was usually a deputy division commander, and there was no such equivalent position in the British or German armies. In Germany, a division would be commanded by either a generalmajor or a generalleutnant; the latter would often command a corps, but this would also be a command for a general. In the British Army, a lieutenant general commanded a corps and a lieutenant general or general commanded an army; but in the US Army a major general commanded a corps and a lieutenant general commanded an army. In fact the four-star rank was rare in the US Army before April 1945; only Craig, Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Arnold and Stilwell held that rank. It is far more common today.

• Bottom line: Link to the article on the rank in question, and do not attempt to provide an "equivalent rank". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

:: For the purposes of this article, I’m happy to dispense entirely with the equivalents and the translations in this dedicated promotions section, per Hawkeye. There are plenty of reliable sources that show the generally accepted equivalents to Anglo-American ranks in WWII (yes, Mathglot, they changed the relative order and position of Generalmajor and Generalleutnant post-war), but we are disappearing down a rabbit hole here and I would rather spend my time helping substantively improve the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

{{notelist-talk |title= |refs=

Analysis/synthesis of German nouns: the German compound about the Danube steamboat comes to mind, known sufficiently in the Anglosphere that even en-wiki has this article about it.

Here is a table comparing the military rank structures of the British Army and German Bundeswehr :

}}

The article uses a well-known image of Paulus and another officer on the Stalingrad front. In all publications I've seen (dozens) that officer is named as Seydlitz-Kurzbach. The Bundesarchiv agrees: https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/search/?query=Bild+146-1971-070-73 2A02:AA1:1028:9002:F497:9BC4:FC2F:1821 (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing this out. Applodion (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have never heard of a "Poisoned dwarf" (except the traditional Celtic band from Virginia). A "poison dwarf" is a someone who is "short, fat and unhappy" see [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poison%20dwarf]. Is this really what Stein says? If so, then is there some context which could be included in the body? Such as who called him that, or coined the nickname? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

:{{re|Peacemaker67}} Being German, I suspect that Hoth - like several other Wehrmacht commanders - was actually called "Giftzwerg" by his troops. As you correctly discovered, "Giftzwerg" is correctly translated "poison dwarf". However, Stein actually says "poisoned dwarf", not "poison dwarf" (though the German translation of his book uses Giftzwerg); according to him, it was a nickname given to him by his troops. Stein claims that the name showcased that the common soldiers did not much like Hoth, though I am not sure about this conclusion. As often pointed out, German humor is an odd thing, and lots of "negative" nicknames (especially in the military) are actually affectionate. Furthermore, other sources state that Hoth was fairly popular - case in point, Kirchubel says that he was also nicknamed "Papa" ("daddy") by the soldiers, making Stein's interpretation more unlikely.
The main problem is the fact that Stein originally wrote in French. Either way, a novel written by a German WWII veteran, Heinrich Gerlach, also called Hoth "Giftzwerg", so this was probably the original version in German. Applodion (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

::I agree the intent of the nickname is probably not negative, but "poisoned dwarf" isn't a thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

:::{{re|Peacemaker67}} Changed it to "Giftzwerg". Applodion (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you give me a reason to revert my edit? To be honest I don't think it's proper to put an image of trial as the infobox image of a general. @Applodion. Some articles did so (like Karl-Adolf Hollidt) is because there are no high quality front view image, but this is not the case for Hoth. Thanks you. Vitsuha (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

:The image is of vastly better quality, as I pointed out in the revert summary. If you think a pixelated, zoomed-in war photo is better than a almost crystal-clear prison photo, I don't know what to tell you. Applodion (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

::Hoth's official file photo is in the Bundesarchiv in a fairly high quality scan. I would assume that the picture itself is not under copyright since it was produced by a government agency and is 80 years old, and the scan would also not be under copyright since it too is the product of a government agency, but I am not sure what the specifics are with non-US government agencies and copyright. 65.216.227.119 (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)