Talk:Gerd von Rundstedt

Gerd or Karl

Hello, somebody just added to the discussion page of the Dutch wiki that we should rename the article to Gerd von Rundstedt as we have now named it Karl von Rundstedt. All of the books I have read about the second ww in Dutch (and these are quite a lot) refer to the man als Karl! Why was chosen for the lemmaname of Gerd? Waerth 21:21, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gerd is much more common. But I'm not German, so what do I know! Aaрон Кинни (t) 10:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK he didn't use his other two forenames, he is usualy referred to as only Gerd von Rundstedt. --Denniss 15:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

For some reason all attempts to introduce some realism into an article that appears as an insuffereble love fest for Rundstedt aresummarily reverted. It has long become depressingly apperant that Wikipedia is colonised by some incorrugible Wehrmacht worshippers, but this too much.

I too have noticed the von Rundstedt fervor, why is there so much favoritism for this general. i move that this page be marked as biased--Manwithbrisk 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Casualty numbers

May i ask which source says that the count of prisoners of Kiev siege was approximately 400.000?

the Soviet marshal Moskalenko reported in 1969 that the some total of Soviet troops possesd by the encircled units was a mere 452,000 while Erickson reports that a total of 150,541 subsequently escaped or fought their way out of encirclement. This would put the total of Soviet troops permanently trapped in the pocket at almost exactly 300,000 of whom a large number doubtlessly died fighting. However Glantz, though accepting Moskalenko's tally, puts the number of Soviet troops who made it out of encirclement at around a mere 15,000 (When Titans Clashed) I am inclined to accept Erickson's figure and regard the 15,000 figure as a mere typo but in the absence of conclusive proof I cannot authorotatively exclude it. What is one to do???. Giving Rundstedt the benefit of the doubt I reluctuntly accepted the Glantz figure. Perhaps the matter should be more extensively covered in a footnote in the article itself for it seems very likely that the actual figure was a mere 300,000 permanently trapped and that Glantz's 15,000 breaking out of encirclement was indeed a mere typing error, but how does one get in touch with Glantz to make sure?!

The easiest way to ask Glantz is to send him an email and ask him.Miletus (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The case of Rundstedts apply for a halt is not definite.Liddell Hart tells the opposite while Willam Shirer thinks he is responsible for the halt order.I request it to be removed from the article. About Kiev casualties: Evan Mawdsley gives the number 616.000, Anthony Beevor 665.000 (prisoners only) and Norman Davies the 657.000's. Guderian claims 290.000. (Also prisoners only)

Curious. Davies quote 'numerous sources', Mawdsley 'Poteri' (?) and Beevor is quite vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.127.162 (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

two images?

In the article it says something about two images but there is only one. Why does it say 2 images if there is only one?

Agreed; change duly made. Nibios 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitler wanting peace with Britain

I am not sure why this is taking up so much space in the Rundstedt article. It's a tiny part of Rundstedt's overall career. It might merit more space in the article on Hitler, perhaps, but not here. -- Hongooi 18:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you and have removed the section. It's basically primary research so it doesn't even belong on Wikipedia. Comatose51 03:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct name spelling

Is it Rundstedt or Randstedt? On the German Wiki its the later.--Mrg3105 (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That was apparently a typo in German Wikipedia and has subsequently been corrected: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_von_Rundstedt Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Franz Halder

Since i'm suspect of vandalism, i state here i made a small change in the word "Halder" in the section "World War II". Geez. 200.222.3.3 (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Rundstedt in Leo G. Carroll

I found a reference to Rundstedt in an article on the actor Leo G. Carroll, who portrayed him once. Reference is made to his war crimes record, and I wondered if it belonged in that article. Can someone take a look? Thanks.--Stetsonharry (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

was von Rundstedt an artist?

My great uncle ran a prisoner of war camp. He sent me pictures painted and signed by Von Rundstedt Are they valuable? They are decent water colors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.182.213 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello people - somebody has removed my entries from Keagan 1974 and everthing I ever has read atbout R. Please tell me why Keagan i 74 was wrong and all the rest. I will ad then again, but ok i this time I will be more precise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjoh (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A sloppy article

This article is rather sloppy, with a good bit of what seems to be POV - and not consistent POVs! Needs a full cleanup.

Having just read Messenger's biography, I agree that this article is second-rate. Like most Wikipedia biographical articles, it contains too much anecdote and too little history. I might have a go at fixing it. I am also highly sceptical about this quote: "Von Rundstedt, addressing the Reich War Academy in Berlin in 1943, declared: "One of the great mistakes of 1918 was to spare the civil life of the enemy countries, for it is necessary for us Germans to be always at least double the numbers of the peoples of the contiguous countries. We are therefore obliged to destroy at least a third of their inhabitants. The only means is organized underfeeding which in this case is better than machine guns." I realise this is referenced, but anyone who has read a Rundstedt biography will see that it is totally out of character, and I very much doubt he said it. The reference given is not to a history work but to a polemical article which gives no source for the quotation. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten this article down to 1939. I'll do the rest when I have time. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the article down to July 1944. I will do the rest next week if I have time. I have also tracked down the source of the above quotation, and as I suspected it's a fabrication, or at least a misattribution. I will refer to it in the proper place. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Referencing

I am doing the referencing in what seems to me to be the cleanest and simplest way. Please leave it as it is until I have finished the rewrite, otherwise it's going to be a hybrid mess and I won't be able to see what I'm doing. After I've finished, if people really want to redo all the referencing, we can argue about that then. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Leaving a rude edit summary when reverting a large number of useful edits is neither WP:AGF nor WP:CIVIL. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason. You do not WP:OWN the article. Please have more respect for your fellow editors. Also, take a look at WP:CITESHORT. (Hohum ^@) 11:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You also tried to add a warning for nobody else to edit the article. More useful notices are Template:In use or Template:Under construction. You will notice that the first is to try an avoid edit conflicts during activity - not to dissuade editing in general, and the second encourages collaboration. (Hohum ^@) 11:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't need collaboration. I need the article to left alone while I work on it. If I'm not allowed to warn people of that, so be it, but they run the risk of getting their edits deleted. When that happens, I'll refer them to you. I don't claim to own the article, but I do claim to know more about the subject matter than anyone who's worked on it so far, so I'd appreciate being allowed to get on with it, without having to conduct silly pedantic edit wars along the way. If people don't like what I write, they can change it when I'm done, which no doubt they will. If you want to change all the referencing so that it looks like a 1950s textbook, that's your prerogative, but turning it into a hybrid mess while the article is being worked on is not useful editing. You actually erased two references so that I had to look them up again. (PS You've also set up your talk page in such a way that I can't figure out how to make comments on it, which doesn't improve my enthusiasm for negotiating with you.) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you don't even tolerate collaboration, wikipedia is not the place for you; end of discussion.

Your edits are valuable content, and I'd like you to see reason.

Contrary to your edit comments, I did not remove any references, other than one which was a duplicate of one a sentence later. I may have slightly moved others, after periods or brackets. Even if I had removed two, you could add those two back rather than wholesale revert. To add comments to my talk page, click the new section button, or add to the very end. If you continue with your current incivil behaviour I will seek the attention of an administrator, with some regret. (Retracted - I see your most recent edit was not a wholesale revert.) (Hohum ^@) 15:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:In use would seem to be the perfect template to use while you are actively making a series of edits, but it should be removed between sessions. (Hohum ^@) 15:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The distinction between "notes" and "references" which you are imposing on this article is pointless and confusing. In a printed book, to be sure, notes appear at the foot of the page while references (usually) appear at the end of a chapter or at the end of the book. But this is not a book, there are no pages, and both notes and references appear at the end of the article. So what is the point of separating them? Particularly when this leads you to split my footnotes into two or three sections, destroying the sense. The note about the number of officers expelled by the Honour Court makes clear that the sources are contradictory, but this point is lost when you split it in two. The note about "Make peace, you fools!" makes it clear that different versions are extant because Blumentritt gave out different versions, but you obscured this by splitting it into three. So now I have to spend my morning rechecking all the footnotes to see what else you've messed up.Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If nobody is any longer interested in standardising the footnotes in this article, I will put them back the way I like them. I will wait for comment before doing so. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITESHORT is a perfectly normal, concise and non confusing, way of referencing articles. So is splitting pure references from those with additional comments. How do you propose to improve them?

The wikipedia self reference needs to go entirely, along with the numbers it is used to support - that or find something reliable to support them. (Hohum ^@) 15:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusion in the "Last years" section

I'm a little confused by the "Last years" section. It says: "His wife was living in Solz, but this was in the American Zone, where he could not travel because the American." In the next paragraph it says: "He and Bila were temporarily housed in an old people's home near Celle." There's no indication as to when they reunited, and under what circumstances. Would someone be able clarify what happened? Thanks - Akamad (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Released from service?

Actually never.Although someone wrote in greek wiki he was released from his service three times by Hitler[[1]],that's no true:the third(wrong) and last one(wrong also) supposed to be on July 1944 ,but truth is Hitler just replaced him for the second time(first one was on East Front in 1942).Generalfeldmarschal von Runstend has always been "Wermacht's older soldier"(his very words),to the end of WW II.28regiment (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC) [[2]]

Translating "court of honor"

In the section, "Plot to Kill Hitler", "Court of Honour" is translated as "Ehrenhof". Should it not be "Ehrengericht"? "Hof" is indeed a court, in a general sense and with several meanings. But a court in the sense of a court of law or other types of judgements or trial, is a "Gericht" or "Gerichtshof". Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Why would you want to translate English into German? The original term is German, and it's "Ehrenhof". 2A02:AA1:164E:6BC3:31FE:5885:CAAD:994F (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hugo Laternser

Or maybe not. 2A02:AA1:164E:6BC3:306D:C97E:472E:CE96 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)