Talk:Hermann Hoth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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)

Link under "notes"[edit]

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)[reply]

Star Wars planet Hoth - just a coincidence?[edit]

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)[reply]

Mentioned five times in the Wehrmachtbericht[edit]

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

Article cleanup[edit]

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)[reply]

C Class Review[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hermann Hoth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 08:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC), taken over by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, no full review[edit]

I find this article in its current state incomplete. It reads, he became a soldier and then he committed crimes was put on trial and then in jail. With respect to the battles, he fought in, I would expect to learn something how his actions as a commander influenced the outcome of these battles. What training did he receive? Where was he born? What qualified him to stay in the Reichswehr after WW1. Also, from an editorial perspective the article lacks a unified citation style which I would expect to see in a GA review. The German wiki article is much more detailed and uses a book by Johannes Hürter: Hitlers Heerführer: Die deutschen Oberbefehlshaber im Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion 1941/42. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, München 2007, ISBN 3-486-58341-7. Without passing further judgement here, I do not yet see this article at GA level. I suggest to get a second option on this article. Good luck and happy editing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MisterBee1966: thank you for initiating the review. On the citation style, it not a GAN criteria that I can see: Wikipedia:Good article criteria#The six good article criteria.
I see your point on the contents of the article. I can definitely expand it by using the Hürter material from the de.wiki article. Unfortunately, Hitlers Heerführer has not been translated into English so I cannot use it directly. It's my understanding that GAN articles do not need to use all available sources in foreign languages. However, I do have other books that discuss Hoth so I will use these as well, or may need to check out a book from the library.
I would appreciate it if you could put the review on hold for 10 days, so that I can improve the article in the meantime. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment on citation style and GAN criteria, please check criteria #2.a it points you to MOS:REFERENCES where it states "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." Point being, it is a valid request to make MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take all the time you want. My pointer to the book by Johannes Hürter was not meant as a "must use criteria", but I merely tried to give a potentially helpful recommendation on how to expand the article further so that it has a reasonable chance at meeting the #3 criteria (broad in coverage). MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great -- thank you! --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Hi! I just came across this review as I was skimming through articles and edit histories. Perhaps I can be of help. I actually have access to Hitlers Heerführer and some Osprey Publishing books, and I would be happy to skim through those to add whatever might be of value to the article. Applodion (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Applodion: thanks for the offer -- that would be great! It's awesome that you have access to Hitlers Heerführer. The Osprey books would likely be superfluous to Hürter, which is a great source. I would appreciate your additions to the article, to flesh out the biography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: I just wanted to update you in regards to the expansion. I have added most of what Hürter said about Hoth, and while Hürter gave a lot of noteworthy details about the Operation Barbarossa-related events, he noted very little about other stuff. Most importantly, Hürter basically said nothing about Hoth's post-1941 career. As a result, we should actually use the Osprey books, as these cover this period in some detail. I have started to add details on Hoth's involvement at Kursk from Forczyk (2017)'s book. Applodion (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Applodion: thank you very much for your work on the article! Would you like to be a co-nominator? --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Oh, thank you for the offer. If it isn't a bother to you, why not? I am happy to help out. Applodion (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Thanks for your patience. I would say that my expansion is done. Even though there are some more books which might yield information on Hoth (such as the one I added to "further reading"), I do not have access to those. Either way, the article should now cover his early life, military activities and crimes in more detail than before. The only thing where I would have really liked to add more is his later life - post-WW2 - as he appears to have written about his service, perhaps contributing to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. However, none of the sources I found discussed his post-war writings.
Anyway! Perhaps you can look over the article, as you generally have a keen eye for improving phrasing/wording. Applodion (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion: thank you very much! I will expand the trial section over the next couple of days, and after that the article should be ready for review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Hello! I just wanted to ask whether you are still planning to expand the trial section. Applodion (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over two months now since the nomination for GA. I recommend to close the review at the end of this week. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterBee1966: Seeing as K.e.coffman seems to be currently unavailable, I would be willing to proceed with the review alone until they return. I have already addressed your concerns in regards to the lacking coverage of Hoth's professional career. Would you be willing to extend your review and recommend further content which might be improved? Applodion (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1956 Hoth published a book Panzer-Operationen: Die Panzergruppe 3 und der operative Gedanke der deutschen Führung, Sommer 1941 [Panzer Operations Germany's Panzer Group 3 During the Invasion of Russia, 1941]. Do we know how historians view his work today? Currently the article does not mention that he even published a book. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterBee1966: Thank you for your quick response. I had also come across this book which has been published both in English as well as German. The issue with adding it to the article stemmed from the strange fact that no fully reliable source mentions the book's existence; academic interest in Hoth's own actions (aside of his trial) seem to plummet after Barbarossa, and completely evaporate after his defeat at Kiev. I found only one scholar who said that Hoth had written a book at all: Gordon Williamson (writer) in one of his works for Osprey Publishing. However, Williamson is a controversial historian, and I am unsure whether it is a good idea to cite him in this article. Applodion (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My ask is not to cite the book but to mention its existence. I would check if the authors of the The Myth of the Eastern Front address the topic MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterBee1966: I understood the question. As I said, besides the questionable account by Williamson, no one even mentions the book's existence. I had consulted "The Myth of the Eastern Front"; the authors never mention that Hoth ever wrote a book (that is what I meant with "adding it to the article" further above; it is problematic to mention the book in this article, as almost no source confirms its mere existence).
IMO, we might just cite Williamson for this one fact - i.e. that Hoth wrote a book - as this is a basic, undisputable statement, despite the silence of other academics. Applodion (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misunderstood, what about Literature by and about Hermann Hoth in the German National Library catalogue? With respect to citing its existence, the German National Library is probably a reliable source MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterBee1966: No, that was my fault for wording it poorly. Anyway, your idea of using the German National Library is great - this way we can even include the translated versions! Applodion (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterBee1966: Update: I have added the book and the Russian translation, but sadly the German National Library does not mention the new English version. Could we just cite the publisher, Casemate for the existence of the English translation? Applodion (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if it is really necessary to cite the existence of the book. I think if you provide the oclc or ISBN number it is self evident. But you might want to ask someone else on this. In addition, I believe German military ranks need to be in italics, they are not loanwords, see the FA article Artur Phleps as an example. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoth served on the staff of Paul von Hindenburg, do we know how this influenced his thinking? He received a number of high awards in both WW1 and WW2, I would like to see some text on why he received these awards. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into this. Applodion (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterBee1966: I have consulted a number of sources, further expanded the article (I actually found another source which mentioned Hoth's book), and adjusted it per your comments. German words should now be in italics. In regards to Hindenburg, I could only find a source which commented that Hoth admired Hindenburg - other influences were not discussed. In regards to the awards: I found sources which confirmed that he got the first Knight's Cross for military achievements during the Poland invasion, and the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords for his withdrawal to the Dnieper (even though this operation was not very successful). For the other awards, I couldn't find anything outside of dubious sources (i.e. Williamson, and right-wing pulp history). Applodion (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterBee1966: Do you have more recommendations? And if I adressed all of your concerns, would you like to conduct a full GA review? Applodion (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a second opinion MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterBee1966: Thank you very much! Applodion (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note that his promotion to Generaloberst came in the wake of the 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Applodion: I suggest that you list the article with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Requests for assessment. The article is already B-class material MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wouldn't worry about that unless it fails GAN, which is highly doubtful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently uses the terms Soviet Union, Soviet and Russia. I suggest to refrain from using "Russia" as an alias for the Soviet Union. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this for one case in "Battle of Stalingrad"; in the other cases, "Russia" is either mentioned in the period before the Soviet Union's formation or in regards to Hoth's own views - and he generally called the country "Russia", so it would not seem appropriate to use "Soviet Union" for those cases. Applodion (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, I'm happy to take a look at this. Will post some comments over the weekend. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Great! Thank you! Applodion (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

In general terms this biographical article is in fairly good condition. Some comments:

Lead and infobox
  • The lead needs expansion with emphasis given roughly in proportion to its importance to the topic of Hoth and to properly summarise the article per MOS:LEAD. I'll take a detailed look once it has been expanded. While I fully accept that Hoth's conviction for war crimes should be given prominence in the lead and forms a relatively minor part of his notability, it is hardly a first or second order matter with regards to it. His notability revolves around his command of panzer groups and armies, especially on the Eastern Front. Any fair reading of the mentions of Hoth in both academic and popular sources would attest to that, his war crimes conviction is something of a footnote. While his status as a war criminal and what he did to become one is important to cover in the lead, it is undue weight to place it before the things he is most notable for. Once the lead has been expanded I'll make some suggestions about the best way to express this in the lead.
  • the lead image could be improved. There are other freely available Bundesarchiv images that better show what Hoth looked like. For example, File:Bundesarchiv, Hermann Hoth.jpg is a closer crop more suitable for an infobox, or Hoth could be cropped from File:Gen. Friedrich Paulus w Stalingradzie (2-941).jpg and used. The image including von Bock would be suitable for use when discussing his relationship with von Bock in the Barbarossa section. It would better to have a head and shoulders portrait, but I can't see one in the Bundesarchiv.
Replaced.
  • 1903–45 → 1903–1945
Done.
  • suggest adding 18th Infantry Division and XV Motorised Corps to the infobox under commands held
Done.
Early life
  • suggest stating where (in terms of the German state) Neuruppin and Demmin were at the time.
Both were located in Prussia, but I was unsure how to include this without it sounding awkward.
What about ", which like Demmin was also in Prussia."? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. Done. Applodion (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • by Cadet Corps presumably we are talking about officer training at a Kriegsschule? In that case, I suggest piping it to Military academy
It was actually a Kadettenschule which is the German term for Cadet Corps, so the word seemed to fit best.
Kadettenkorps would be the German for Cadet Corps, as distinct from the actual school for preparing boys for training as officers. Cadet School (which redirects to military academy) would be the more accurate translation of Kadettenschule, but I think what we are talking about here is probably Kadettenanstalt or Kadettenhaus, which are adequately explained in the de WP article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • say what the Preußische Hauptkadettenanstalt was ie the Royal Prussian Military Academy
Added "(Royal Prussian Military Academy)"
  • what is meant by "a heightened belief in authority"?
Hürter quoted Hoth in length for this case, as the latter wrote about his experiences at school. In regards to your question, Hoth said "Eine gewisse Uberschätzung des Autoritätsglaubens, die in diesen Jahren ihren Ursprung hat, habe ich nicht mehr ganz verloren". Both "Überschätzung" and "Autoritätsglauben" are difficult to translate into English in this case (the direct translations do not really capture the essence here); Hoth tries to say that he developed a very strong belief about authority figures generally doing the right thing in school ("Autoritätsglauben" in this case suggests a bit of blind obedience). In his own opinion, he got more critical with age, but never completely lost this partial obedience/faith/belief that whoever was in charge was making the correction decisions. I tried to capture all this with "a heightened belief in authority".
Ok, that makes sense, but perhaps a few more words would make this clearer. Something like "During his time at the Kadettenschule (or "During his preparation and training to become an officer... "), Hoth developed what he later recognised was a strong authority bias, something that he did not entirely discard even after World War II." Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "authority bias" is a good fit in this case. I changed the sentence to "During his preparation and training to become an officer, Hoth developed what he later recognised was a strong authority bias, something that he did never entirely discard even after the conclusion of his education." Applodion (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend using the German ranks in italics throughout rather than Anglicising some (or all). German general ranks of the period were rather confusing with respect to the British or American equivalents. ie "He was commissioned as a Leutnant in the Prussian Army..."
Okay, and done for all cases I could find.
  • and was appointed Oberleutnant
Done
  • do we know who he married?
"He also married Lola Schubering in 1918". I assumed that this was clear?
Yes, sorry, I meant who the mother of his first son (born in 1913) was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Sadly, I found no source that adresses his first son in detail (which I thought odd, as extramarital children were a big deal at the time). Applodion (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only four weeks "at the front" implies that he sat in Berlin throughout the war. Headquarters of armies (like the 8th) were deployed into the field on the respective fronts in WWI. Perhaps "Hoth spent almost all of the war as a staff officer on higher headquarters and only four weeks on the front line." would be more accurate?
Adjusted.
  • "1914 Russian invasion of East Prussia"
Done
  • "ThroughoutDuring the war, Hoth held positions"
Done
  • say what the Luftstreitkräfte was
Added "(air arm of the Imperial German Army)"
  • Hoth was awarded the Knight's Cross of the House Order of Hohenzollern with Swords for his service in WWI. This was a major award, between the Iron Cross First Class and the Pour le Mérite (the highest award). It should probably be inserted into the text rather than just listed in the Summary at the bottom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point, but none of the sources on Hoth's career in WW1 (which I found, admittedly) actually point out that he did anything impressive to warrant this kind of award during the last months of the war. Should we just mention the award without any context? That might make it appear as if he performed some kind of frontline heroics in 1918, even though he was actually still a staff officer.
  • what organisation was Hoth with in 1918-1919? The Stahlhelm?
He never seems to have left the armed forces; in 1918-1919, he served as officer in the newly emerged Reichswehr. To make this clear, I adjusted the sentence: "In the German Revolution of 1918–1919, Hoth served as Reichswehr officer and helped to put down left-wing uprisings at Halle."
  • when was Hoth promoted to Major and Oberstleutnant?
Added; Major in 1924 and Oberstleutnant in 1929.
  • the subsection heading "Takeover by the Nazi Party" isn't useful or relevant to a biography. Perhaps "Attitude to the Nazi Party"?
I renamed the section "Initial service under the Nazi regime"; seemed more fitting for the content, what do you think?
  • "to improve the military" in what way? Greater funding? Reorganisation?
Probably also those, but what Hürter focused on was Hoth's interest in motorization. I added an sentence to make this more clear: "Like several other Reichswehr officers such as Heinz Guderian and Georg-Hans Reinhardt, Hoth hoped that a Nazi-led government would allow him to push through his ideas in regards to greater motorization and armoured warfare."
  • link Communist Party of Germany and Social Democratic Party of Germany
Done
  • what does "the rise of his country in international relations" mean? In reputation? Power?
Hürter again quoted Hoth in this case, with the latter saying that Hitler's regime vaguely contributed to the "Wiederherstellung der Gleichberechtigung Deutschlands" (roughly "restoration of German's status as an equal [on the international stage]"). Hoth is essentially following the conspiracy theory mindset of post-WW1 Germans in this case, as many Germans believed that the Treaty of Versailles had reduced Germany to a lower status in world affairs. Many Nazis claimed that Germany was a puppet state of Jewish money and the Allied powers before WW2.
Perhaps it would be better to say "In the end, however, he believed the fate of Jews to be less important than the elimination of Communism in Germany and the restoration of what he saw as Germany's status as an equal in world affairs" or similar?
Yes, that’s better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Applodion (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • at what rank was he appointed to command the 18th Infantry Division? Generalmajor?
Yes, and added.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "On the other side"? I'm not sure that these two things are appropriate to counterpose. ie why would his dislike of communism be counterposed with his views on the interactions between right-wing politics and the military?
Yes, that was misplaced. Changed.
  • Why and in what way did the Blomberg-Fritsch affair cement Hoth's trust in Hitler?
That's something I wondered, too, but Hürter just said that it did. Should I remove it? I thought that it was notable, but the lack of actual explanation makes it appear somewhat random.
I think that without any explanation, it just begs questions to which we don’t have an answer. I would leave it out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Applodion (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World War II
  • When was Hoth promoted to General der Infanterie? Presumably around the time he was appointed to command the corps?
Added.
  • The Poland and France para is pretty light on given the importance of Hoth's formation in both campaigns. A couple of observations:
    • There is no information about what his corps did in the two campaigns, Forczyk's Case White: The Invasion of Poland 1939 covers Hoth's part in the first campaign, and his Case Red: The Collapse of France the second. Also, in the latter campaign, the corps was also known as "Panzergruppe/Gruppe Hoth".
    • In Poland, Hoth's corps included two light divisions (converted to panzer divisions based on lessons learned in Poland). They performed well but it was realised that armour needed to be massed. Zetterling covers this in Blitzkrieg: From the Ground Up published by Casemate in 2017 [1].
@Peacemaker67: I will try to get access to Case White, Case Red, and Blitzkrieg: From the Ground Up. However, I am quite busy in the next two days, so I hope that it would be no problem if I take a bit of time for this expansion. Applodion (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I'll push on with the rest of the article, but I don't get tense about timeframes for GAN. Better to get a good result than rush it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have gotten the books, and will continue expanding the article. Applodion (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hoth's report on the performance of his light divisions in Poland, their lack of armour heft, and their resulting conversion into panzer divisions should be mentioned. This is in Zetterling.
Done.
  • Hoth's corps in France was still called the XV Motorised Corps not a panzer corps. It actually included a motorised infantry division at various points of the campaign as well as the two panzer divisions. It might be worth mentioning that the commander of one of Hoth's subordinate divisions (the 7th Panzer) was Erwin Rommel.
Corrected.
Adjusted.
  • This article confirms that elements of Hoth's corps were involved in the massacres of black French soldiers. As it is currently written, the reader is left wondering if Hoth's troops were involved. Scheck mentions both panzer divisions of Hoth's corps.
Done.
  • In general, it is better to say "XV Motorised Corps/Hoth's corps broke through" somewhere rather than "Hoth's advance" etc. This sort of language personalizes of the collective actions of the soldiers under his command, and it is partly responsible for the cult of personality around people like Rommel and Guderian in popular history.
Have started fixing this.

Down to Operation Barbarossa. Great work on the expansion of the Polish and French campaigns. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • a bit more information about 3rd Panzer Group would be useful. At the beginning of Barbarossa it consisted of two panzer corps and two infantry corps, and it was directly commanded by Bock AFAIK.
Haven't found anything on Bock's role with the panzer group in my books, but I expanded on its composition.
  • The two aren't opposed, so "On the other side" isn't appropriate here. You could say, "Despite his belief in the necessity of the invasion, Hoth had misgivings about its strategic planning and execution."
Fixed. Somehow I really like the phrase "on the other side"...
  • crisises→crises
Fixed.
  • what was the command/operational relationship between 3rd Panzer Group and Ninth Army?
Done.
  • What were "Guderian's forces"?
Done.
  • Is anything known about his apparent promotion to command 17th Army? ie why he was replaced at 3rd Panzer Group or why he was selected for 17th Army?
Done.
  • What operations did 17th Army undertake under his command between October 1941 and the commencement of the Soviet winter offensives?
Expanded.
  • What happened with 17th Army during the Barvenkovo–Lozovaya offensive of January 1942? AFAIK this is when the 17th Army was pushed back and the Izyum–Barvenkovo salient developed
Expanded.
  • the Second Battle of Kharkov was not in the winter, it was in May 1942, and it was a significant Axis success, with the Izyum–Barvenkovo salient being pinched off, mostly by Kleist's 1st Panzer Army from the south and Paulus' 6th Army from the north
No idea how I made this mistake; started to correct / fix this one.
  • Hoth and Ruoff actually swapped positions
Strictly speaking, Hans von Salmuth was also involved in this role rotation; will look further into this.
  • A bit more explanation is needed about what 4th Panzer Army was tasked to do during Case Blue as part of Army Group B, in conjunction with the 6th Army attack from the west, attack from the south towards Stalingrad. From a strategic perspective Army Group B's role was to protect the flank of Army Group A as it drove towards the oilfields at Baku.
Done.
  • There certainly is quite a bit more to say about Hoth's command of 4th Panzer Army, the delay in linking up with Paulus etc. Five months of constant fighting is covered in two sentences.
Started to expand this. More to come.
Done, I would say. Applodion (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for your work. The last days were more busy than I had expected, but I will start improving the Barbarossa / Stalingrad sections over the next days. Applodion (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • just a clarification of the command of 17th Army. Glantz says in April and May 1942, 17th Army under Hoth was combined with Kleist's 1st Panzer Army to form Army Group Kleist. Hoth seems to have retained command of 17th Army, but as part of Kleist's eponymous command. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I really could not find this information in the copy of Glantz's book I have access to. Can you point out where exactly you read this?
  • Minor piece of info, according to Glantz pp. 20-21, Hoth was "one of Germany's most experienced armoured tacticians" (this seems suitable for the lead as well), and per p. 21, commanded the 17th Infantry Regiment in the 1930s, and "was instrumental in the initial advances during Case Blue". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • I'm just going to address the last two sections before returning to look at the Eastern Front operational aspects above them.
  • The trial section needs expansion. Hoth (like the other defendants) was charged with with four counts:
  1. Crimes against peace by waging aggressive war against other nations and violating international treaties.
  2. War crimes by being responsible for murder, ill-treatment and other crimes against prisoners of war and enemy belligerents.
  3. Crimes against humanity by participating or ordering the murder, torture, deportation, hostage-taking, etc. of civilians in military-occupied countries.
  4. Participating and organizing the formulations and execution of a common plan and conspiracy to commit aforementioned crimes.
  • The fourth count was quickly dropped as effectively redundant, and no-one was found guilty on the first count because they were not considered to have been the policy-makers and because preparing for and fighting a war wasn't considered a crime at the time. So Hoth was found guilty of counts 2 and 3. You might like to consider approaching this section in a similar way to one of my FAs on a WWII German war criminal, Gottlob Berger#War crimes trial, breaking it down into Indictment, Hoth's evidence, Judgement and Sentence and review.
Thanks for the example/outline; I will adjust the section accordingly.
Done. Applodion (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest combining Later life and legacy into one section.
Done.
  • I understand the full title of the book is: Panzer-Operationen: die Panzer-gruppe 3 und der operative Gedanke der deutschen Führung Sommer 1941. Can anything be said about its virtues or otherwise? Apparently the 2016 English translation was described in the US Army Combined Arms Center Military Review as "very readable and thought-provoking" (might be worth hunting that review down), worth mentioning the English translation as well as the earlier Russian one. His discussion of the use of nuclear weapons in future conflicts is probably worth a mention here. The 1961 Russian translation was Tankovye operacii.
I am supposed to just cite information from Hoth's own book? From my understanding, aren't we discouraged from doing stuff like that?
Regarding the review, I couldn't find it among the post-2015 Military Review journals, and then looked into the 1956 ones where I couldn't locate it either. I actually discovered that the quote is not from Military Review at all, but from this blog, called "The Military Reviewer". Admittedly, the blog's author Chris Buckham is actually respectable enough to get his review published in the Canadian Army Journal, but one might still consider the entire thing a tad misleading on Casemate's part. Anyway, I will add the review.
I have added the review's main points. The reviewer, Buckham, basically only lauds the book, and actually criticizes the translator for including a section discussing the fact that Hoth was a Nazi and racist. I am not really sure what to make of this, though I have to admit that it leaves a bad taste regarding the review's quality and makes it seem like one of those written by militaria apologists. Applodion (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't picked that up. In that case, I am not sure it should be included. Seems marginal. I wasn't suggesting you cite Hoth's book, I was suggesting you mention what a reviewer said about it. If there are no reputable reviews, I wouldn't say more than stating the titles in the original German and Russian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Regarding the review, strictly speaking it is reputable; the Canadian Army Journal is peer-reviewed. Perhaps it would be best to put most of the review into a note, and only keep a more generalized comment that the book was positively received in the main text. Applodion (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoth also wrote two 1958 articles in Wehrkunde entitled Mansteins Operationsplan für den Westfeldzug 1940 und die Aufmarschanweisung des O.K.H. vom 27.2.40 about the planning for the invasion of France and the Low Countries, and Das Schicksal der französischen Panzerwaffe im 1. Teil des Westfeldzuges 1940 about French armoured operations in the first phase of that invasion.
How am I supposed to cite them? Should I just use worldcat as proof for their existence? As far as I can see, they were not independently discussed by researchers.
Done. Applodion (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoth also wrote an article based on his experiences with the Luftstreitkräfte during WWI regarding the use of aircraft as weapons, entitled Flugzeuge als Kampfmittel, which was published in Militär-wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen in 1922.
Same as above.
In both cases all you have to do is use the info on Worldcat to cite them when you mention that he had articles published on those subjects. See the way I have handled Bill Denny's books in his article for an example. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thank you. Applodion (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Applodion (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be worth providing a bit more information on Unternehmen Barbarossa, its 1964 English translation "Hitler Moves East 1941-1943", its initial and continuing mass popularity but also immediate and later criticisms of the book. A critical review by Michael Parrish appeared in the journal Political Research Quarterly Vol 19, Issue 1, 1966 DOI: 10.1177/106591296601900116, along with another review by Raymond L. Garthoff in The Russian Review Vol. 24, No. 3 (Jul 1965), and of course there are more recent critical reviews. It would also be helpful to know exactly what Hoth's role in the book was.
Added reviews and one known contribution of Hoth to the book.

I'll stop here and return when the WWII section has been fleshed out and the last sections tweaked. Ping me at the point where you are ready for me to finalise the review? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Peacemaker67: Hello! Sorry that I needed this much time, but I have fleshed out almost all the issues you pointed out (I still need to add the Unternehmen Barbarossa reviews). If you are willing, you may continue with the review now. Applodion (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will finish up shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Applodion, if you could bring the lead up to scratch as an introduction and summary of the article per MOS:LEAD, I reckon we are getting pretty close to finishing this one up. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Will do! Applodion (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I have made the last improvements, expanding the lede and adding a bit to the Unternehmen Barbarossa book. Applodion (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of image comments:

  • the licensing of File:Grupa oficerów niemieckich podczas narady na froncie wschodnim (2-670).jpg is unclear. Apparently it was uploaded as a result of an agreement with Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe, but the tag used states that a US PD tag is needed. Perhaps Nikkimaria can help? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to wait for Nikkimaria's response before replacing this one.
      • The partnership tag does not appear to list any specific associated licensing, nor is there one at the source site. Unless there is further information available on the terms of this partnership, we have to assume full licensing is required - meaning both we need a US tag, and we also need to be able to demonstrate a photographer date of death over 70 years ago to satisfy the current tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, that makes sense. The photographer appears to be Hans van der Piepen, a member of a Propagandakompanie, but I cannot find any evidence online about his date of death. A few of his photographs are in the Bundesarchiv images shared with WP, so it is possible that the Bundesarchiv also holds this photo, and it may be subject to the agreement between the Bundesarchiv and WP, but I cannot find it on the Bundesarchive website. It may have to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I replaced the image with a more generic alternative from the Bundesarchiv (showing a tank during one of the mentioned battles), and instead used a Bundesarchiv photo of Hoth for the Kursk section. Thus, we maintain the same number of images of Hoth himself. Applodion (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the licence tag for File:Hitlerdnieper.jpg seems internally contradictory as well.
    • I replaced File:Hitlerdnieper.jpg with an image whose licensing should be ok.
  • Otherwise, the images are all PD. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Applodion, well done on your work on improving this article. It now easily meets the GA criteria, and is close to Milhist A-Class (which I recommend you nominate it for). For clarity, this article is now well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for the kind words. Without your great review as well as patience, however, I would not have been able to improve the article to this degree, so I also thank you for that. Applodion (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd subtopic parameter for a military biography GAN[edit]

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)[reply]

Generalmajor and Generalleutnant[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Unfortunately, like in my case, my English is very weak and I rely heavily on tools like google translate or 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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, "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)[reply]
@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 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)[reply]
@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,[a] 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 {{ping}} me, if you do. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Maybe linking Ranks of the German Bundeswehr#Table of ranks or Comparative army officer ranks of Europe? Or, you could add an explanatory note[b] as an explanation. Does that work for you? Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ Here is a table comparing the military rank structures of the British Army and German Bundeswehr :
    Comparison of German and British Army ranks
     British Army
    		 Field marshal General Lieutenant-general Major-general Brigadier Colonel Lieutenant-colonel Major Captain Lieutenant Second lieutenant Officer cadet
    Field marshal General Lieutenant-general Major-general Brigadier Colonel Lieutenant colonel Major Captain Lieutenant Second lieutenant Officer cadet
     German Army
    		 Enlisted rank plus bottom thin silver
    cord indicating cadet's career
    General General­leutnant General­major Brigade­general Oberst Oberst­leutnant Major Stabs­haupt­mann Haupt­mann Ober­leut­nant Leut­nant Ober­fähn­rich Fähn­rich Fahnen­junker

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "UK_Army" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Germany_Army" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Picture with Paulus[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Poisoned dwarf?[edit]

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 [2]. 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Changed it to "Giftzwerg". Applodion (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hermann_Hoth&oldid=1206348976"