Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel

Notes

References

This assertion that Rudel himself claimed 51 enemy aircraft has no basis in fact; it's been a few years since I read his book, but I believe the accepted figure was 9 or 10. 51 is ludicrous, and supported by nothing other than the imaginings of some very noisy modern fanboys. Again, to be clear: not even Rudel himself, a man not known for his modesty, claimed anywhere close to this number of aerial victories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:4700:7D64:5874:E069:229B:B3C0 (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I have changed the 51 to the more commonly reported nine (as well as adding information on his role in the A-10 program, including a citation). TowerNumberNine (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Eagle of the Eastern Front"

This nickname apparently comes from Rudel's own book; see [1] in The Myth of the Eastern Front. Rudel's memoirs are not an independent source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Answer: sources regarding the nickname

Excuse me but what you posted here is a book named The Myth of the Eastern Front written by Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies. This is not Rudel's memoirs and it is not written by Rudel himself. The specific extract from the book that you posted here is merely a mention of the fact that Rudel was known as the Eagle of the Eastern front. Moreover, I used 4 independent and reliable sources, including a book. To sum up, 1) The book is not Rudel's memoirs and obviously it is not written by Rudel himself 2) I used 4 independent and reliable sources including a book 3) The nickname Adler der Ostfront is well known for anyone who has even the slightest knowledge regarding the military history of World War II. The are dozens of nicknames for many other military figures from both the United States, England, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: Rommel, Spatz etc and tens of others, see: List of military figures by nickname. Lynxavier (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hans-Ulrich Rudel: Adler der Ostfront (1971) was written by Günter Just in close collaboration with Rudel himself. Just would become the first recipient of the "Hans-Ulrich-Rudel-Award" donated by Gerhard Frey in 1983. Just's work is neither an independent nor a reliable source. Basically it is Neonazi propaganda published by the publishing house of the NPD. Interestingly enough I could not find reference for the "Adler der Ostfront"-name earlier than 1971. I checked Wochenschauen and Rudel's publications from 1945 to 1970. It is true that news agencies have picked up that "nickname", an allusion to Max Immelmann. But if any it is not a "nickname", but a name given to Rudel by propaganda.--Assayer (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If it is indeed the creation of Neonazi propaganda then we should delete it. I wasn't aware of this fact. I thought that it was a nickname bestowed on him due to his great skills as a pilot and his military record. If it is a mere Neonazi propaganda effort to boost the myth of the "heroic and clean Wehrmacht" then delete it by all means. Rudel was undoubtedly a distinguished pilot but he was also a Neonazi and a well-known advocate of national socialism. If what you suggest is true then I'll delete it myself. Lynxavier (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

To both Assayer and K.e.coffman: If you show me some credible evidence that "The Eagle of the Eastern Front" is created by Neonazi proganada mechanisms I'll delete the nickname myself. The fact is that this nickname is used very often, I've seen it countless times in articles regarding Rudel. I obviously mean in objective websites and publications, not in Neonazi websites or Nazi-sympathizing propaganda pages or publications. Anyway, Assayer I totally respect your research on the matter, If you have some conclusive evidence that the nickname is a neonazi falsehood, I'll delete it. Lynxavier (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the "Eagle of the Eastern Front" was picked up by many, but that does not mean that it is a genuine nickname. What kind of evidence do you think of? I would think that it should be easier to provide evidence that the nickname was used at the Eastern Front at that time than to disprove it. With Immelmann, e.g., there are obituaries from 1916 that call him "Adler von Lille" or "Überhabicht". The book by Just is politically very straightfoward in its admiration of Rudel and the Führer. In another book, Die ruhmreichen Vier: Flieger-Asse von Sieg zu Sieg (National-Verlag, 1972), Just called Walter Nowotny the Jägerblitz vom Wolchow. As early as 1964 his brother Rudolf had claimed, that Walter Nowotny had been known at the Eastern Front as "Tiger vom Wolchowstroj". That does not add to Just's credibility. --Assayer (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Assayer the fact that independent sources like history.net, airforcemag.com and many others use the nickname is an indication that it a well-known nickname as far as I'm concerned. It is not entirely a matter of Just's credibility in my opinion. Lynxavier (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with Assayer and Coffman. A genuine nickname is usually something that someone is called at the time, but this appellation appears to have been coined decades after the fact by neonazi propagandists. (For comparison, see the British pilots - they are called things like "Ginger" or "Widge" rather than "Eagle of the Channel Front"). History.net and airforcemag are probably not the most reliable sources on the subject. Catrìona (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lynxavier: Your asked for evidence that the nickname was created by Neonazi proganada, i.e. that it came up only after the war, most likely with Günter Just's adulatory biography. That more recent sources use the nickname only demonstrates that it somehow became popular, but it does not prove that it was a genuine nickname coined, used and well known during the war. For that you would need sources predating Just's work. But it does not make much difference whether the name originated with Nazi propaganda during or Neonazi propaganda after the war. It is still propaganda, just like the "Adler von Lille" used for Immelmann originated with wartime propaganda during WW1. An example of a genuine German fighter pilot's nickname is Vati (daddy) Werner Mölders. --Assayer (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Catriona: Why exactly History.net and airforcemag aren't reliable sources? I understand the argument about Günter Just's book to a certain extent, but we cannot start cherry picking sources. I understand that this is a rather delicate matter because we're debating about a Nazi officer's nickname and the horrendous crimes of this mass-murdering state always come to mind, but nevertheless we should keep an open mind. There were nicknames for Nazi officers as well, and they might be legitimate and worth mentioning, despite the fact that they were war criminals or commited Nazis. As far as your other argument is concerned ("A genuine nickname is usually something that someone is called at the time, but this appellation appears to have been coined decades after the fact by neonazi propagandists. For comparison, see the British pilots - they are called things like "Ginger" or "Widge" rather than "Eagle of the Channel Front"), I'd like to remind you some nicknames: Rommel ("The Desert Fox"), Guderian ("Schneller Heinz"), Model ("Master of Defence", "Lion of Defence", "The Saviour of the Eastern Front", "Führer's Fireman"), Keitel ("Lakeitel"), Patton (""Bandito", "Old Blood and Guts") and many more. These were not things that they were called at the time, nor are they spontaneous nicknames bestowed by colleagues or friends. Lynxavier (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Assayer: If you ask me, a great number of nicknames might as well have been created by propaganda. It is very difficult to ascertain whether a nickname was genuine or created by propaganda or a little bit of both. If you take a look here for example: List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States, you'll see nicknames like: "The Father of His Country" for George Washington, the "The Colossus of Independence" for John Adams, "The Apostle of Democracy" and "The Man of the People" for Jefferson etc. Do you believe that these are genuine nicknames? Or nicknames created by American propaganda? The whole matter is very tricky as you can see. Max Immelmann's page still mentions the "Adler von Lille" nickname, because it is widely used, and it is worth mentioning in my opinion, despite the fact that it might have been originally created by German wartime propaganda (or that it might have been simply used by German propaganda to a certain extent). Lynxavier (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not research the nicknames of Presidents of the USA. It might be an interesting topic, but it is not the topic that we are discussing here. On the one hand, you may note a difference between nicknames that can be traced back to the war like "Savior of the Eastern Front", which is actually not a nickname, but attributed to a talk by Hitler, and nicknames that were made up after the war. On the other hand, I do not see a reason why nicknames of dubious origin and clearly propagandistic use should be featured in an infobox after all. This is not the biography of someone who figures prominently in popular culture. You mentioned US Presidents. How many of them have a nickname featured in the infobox of their respective articles? You won't find any nickname mentioned in the articles on John Adams or Jefferson at all. Why should Wikipedia introduce a German Neo-Nazi politician as "eagle of the Eastern Front"?--Assayer (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Assayer: You're missing the point. I despise Neo-Nazis as well, but this is completely irrelevant here. The fact that someone might have been Neo-Nazi, Fascist, Communist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, Anarchist, Authoritarian, Totalitarian, Liberal, Republican or Democrat doesn't prevent him from having a nickname. Positive or negative. Heydrich was called "The Hangman", "The Butcher of Prague", "The Blond Beast" but at the same time "The Man with The Iron Heart". The last one is obviously more flattering than the others, especially for a central figure of the Holocaust, responsible for millions of deaths. Nevertheless, wikipedia mentions it because it existed as a nickname. Rommel was nicknamed "Desert Fox" which is overly flattering and 100% positive. How do you know that this was not a product of Nazi propaganda? If we go down that road, we'll start deleting practically every nickname that exists because it is too positive, too negative, too controversial, or a product of Nazi, Fascist, Communist, Stalinist, Neo-Liberal, German, American, Japanese, Italian, Russian, Soviet propaganda. I mentioned you countless examples in my two previous answers. Lynxavier (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You are missing my point: Not all nicknames are the same and not equally well known. Rommel is very well known in the English speaking world as the "Desert Fox" and likely the most well known German commander of WW II. Wikipedia even features an article about the Rommel myth. Although Rudel was the most decorated German serviceman of World War II, he was never widely known as the "Eagle of the Eastern Front", but as a Nazi. Neither derogatory nor flattering nicknames are featured in Wikipedia infoboxes, unless they were really widely used. Not many American politicians have "nicknames" featured in the infoboxes of their respective articles. It is deeply concerning that Hitler's eulogy on Heydrich ("man with the iron heart") is featured by Wikipedia as a "nickname". --Assayer (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Place of birth

Can we get a RS for his place of birth? The issue is subject to some edit warring on pl wiki, but witout many sources cited. A German source is cited for Grzędy, Lower Silesian Voivodeship (Konradswaldau) while a local newspaper for Kondratów (also, German Konradswaldau). So while we can be sure he was born in Konradswaldau, the question is - which Konradswaldau? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link: [2]. The matter of the supposed nickname is discussed above: #"Eagle_of_the_Eastern_Front". The other changes were giving too much credence to the numbers derived from unreliable war-time propaganda. The previous, more concise version was better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Hans-Ulrich Rudel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: There is consensus below that while the article may be incomplete, it touches on all the major areas of expected content. What constitutes broadness is subjective, but it does not mean the article must include all important facts (differing from FACR 1b). This close does not mean the article is considered complete; on the contrary, Good Articles can often be improved. However, such discussion is better suited for the article talk page than the GA process. CMD (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Since the article was promoted to GAR in 2016, the article was significantly reduced in content. The reasoning being the sources put forward by me at the time were contested as unreliable. In consequence, I doubt the article still meets the criteria of significantly broad in coverage. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

MisterBee1966, what do you think is not covered by the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 have a look at the article in the state it passed GA and compare it too its current version. His entire military career was reduced to a few paragraphs MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

But if the sources supporting those removed paragraphs were deemed unreliable, their content doesn't need to be in the article MisterBee1966 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The deletion, justified or not, still makes the article incomplete, subsequently failing "Broad in its coverage". Consequently, the article should be demoted. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@MisterBee1966 and AirshipJungleman29: it might be worth it for the both of you to take a look at this. Best, 750h+ 10:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to avoid a discussion about sourcing and the deletion here. Although the historian Sönke Neitzel used the same sources when he created the Rudel entry in the Deutsche Biographie (see Deutsche Biographie: Rudel, Hans-Ulrich and Publications at the University of Potsdam), the same sources which the original Wikipedia article also used, the deletions on Wikipedia were enforced. In my opinion, the current state of the article fails the GA criteria. I think the article should be demoted and rebuilt, potentially using other sources. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

(here from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Old GARs needing participation). Reading through the article before I looked at this discussion, I would not have said that there was an issue with broadness of coverage. Even having read it, I cannot see what the issue is. What, specifically, do you think should be addressed in the article which currently isn't? Remember that (as WP:GANOT puts it) criterion 3 does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Rudel was the most highly decorated German soldier of WW2, maybe comparable to the Audie Murphy. In comparison, the Rudel article does not tell us where and how Rudel was trained, when he was promoted, in what engagements he fought, his impact on the German propaganda. I find that a shortcoming. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed an uncited statement. @MisterBee1966: I think the article does cover where Rudel was trained and various engagements. Are there any sources that you can be provided that might help us fill in the missing information? While this article cannot cover every engagement, are there significant ones that are missing from this article that you think should be included, and if so which ones? Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I have, I will not. I remain convinced that the article insufficiently covers his war service for a military history GA article. Obviously, if the community thinks it does meet the criteria, I will rest my case. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The Rudel article does actually discuss all four of the things you mention as missing. Perhaps it could include more detail of Rudel's training, but we do get the specific dates he was promoted to Gruppenkommandeur, Oberstleutnant, and Oberst; information about several battles he was involved in, including a fairly detailed description of one specific action (the sinking of the Marat); and a mention of the use of footage from his plane in German propaganda newsreels. And again, the GA criteria do not require comprehensive coverage like the FA criteria do. I don't believe that this article is insufficiently broad in coverage to meet the GA criteria. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

This debate seems to be around coverage. The requirement is that it addresses the main aspects of the topic. It seems to do that. The criteria don't specify to what level of detail. What we have is considerably more than a token effort, so to me 1a is met. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Joel Hayward quotes twice from Stuka Pilot in Stopped at Stalingrad (1998), a RS. I would normally consider that to mean that we can use those quotes, with in line attribution. Before I put something together, are there opinions on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The Swedish author sv:Christer Bergström, particularly his book "Kursk—The Final Air Battle: July 1943", covers his actions as an anti-tank pilot. A source I would consider checking into. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@GAR coordinators: please can you check if there is consensus to close one way or the other. Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I support the demotion, cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I have expanded the World War II section a little. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.