User talk:W. B. Wilson

Archives #1 1/07 - 2/08, #2 2/08 - 12/09, #3 1/10 - 12/10

36th Infantry division

I see that your edit of 10 Dec 2010 at 1732 has the division still in France until January 1945, (changing it from October 1944); have you any sources to back this up as I always thought that there were no German troops still on French soil at this time?
Regards
RASAM (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lineage for the Bundeswehr

Thanks so much Mr Wilson - I really appreciate it. Kind regards and Happy New Year 2011! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

36th Inf Div in 1945

I'd completely forgotten about the Atlantic ports, doh ! As for Operation Nordwind, I thought (for some strange reason) that it took place east of the Rhine - obviously not ! Thanks for putting me straight and writing such a prompt reply.
Regards
RASAM (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramcke

I see the "nazi", not a nazi issue popped up again. I have to say I think that you did an excellent and professional job of re-editing the earlier contribution (even if we differ a bit on the man). You incorporated that editor's information in a more logical and structured way and removed opinion.

Along those lines though: are you sure that you want to use the "strongly indicative of" phrasing? It seems to me those orders are blatant Nazi propaganda. Might as well say it (as the other editor apparently felt). I would also humbly suggest that he/she had a good idea in that you perhaps reduce the degree of attribution to Ramcke, as those words were read by many commanders on multiple fronts and would have originated at the propaganda ministry. While a historian recognizes that aspect of daily orders in every army, the middle-school students using wikipedia may not. (Just as backing, I would point out that Ramcke's actions in captivity and after the war are counterindicative of personally holding the views expressed in his orders. Specifically, he maintained cordial relationships with Americans such as Middleton, had his son emmigrate to America to raise his grandkids, and interacted with African-american laborers at the prison camp whom some racist white Americans working there considered themselves too good to speak to in 1945.)

I looked at your source for "released due to old age". This conflicts with other sources that indicate he was released due to time served (5 year sentence, 7 years in captivity). Also, he was not THAT old - and his then recent escape indicated that neither age nor extremily harsh conditions and weight loss had in any way rendered him infirm. I suspect that the source of the "released due to age" was in error. --Rwberndt (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I do agree that balance is required. I like your proposed rephrasing of "reflect the peculiarly racist outlook of the Third Reich" as racist is a fact, peculiar, relative to the bulk of human governments, is a fact, etc. Would you care to make the final edit ?

As for attribution, while I cannot find a record of the original author of the orders, I would think it reasonable to say something along the lines of "Daily orders for Ramcke's command on <forgot the date> included" and then not further attribute to him by name, just let the text stand as it would have been published to the troops. I think that would be accurate and objective.

As you point out, my knowledge of unpublished source documents cannot be used in this piece. But I can offer these items with regard to his post-war view of America: I was able to use the date of the 1945 letter recently cited in the article to pull-up a copy of it on the web at http://www.kilroywashere.org/004-Pages/JAN-Area/04-D-JAN-POW-Ramcke.html (should this be added to the ref ?). As I thought I recalled, it demonstrates his interaction with African-americans as a source of information. His book, Damals und Danach also speaks to his cordial relations with Americans while in captivity such as Middleton. The issue of entrusting family to our culture is hard to cite a 3rd party for - does the phone book count ?

Two sources I found quickly for "released due to time served", beyond his own statement in Damals und Danach, are a paratrooper website, specifically the page http://www.fallschirmjager.biz/info_persons_001.htm, and also page 201 of Troy H Middleton: A Biography, by Frank J. Price, published by Louisiana State University Press in 1974 and on Google Books. (Which also gives further evidence of Ramcke's lack of demonstrating any anti-american bias).

I think some edits would benefit future readers. Which of us should attempt them ?--Rwberndt (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion I have taken a shot a the edits. I did not feel comfortable including anything on his views of Americans because of the lack of solid 3rd-party documentation. I do think you are correct when you speculate he was not aware of the behavior of other German commanders. His reputation in Germany after the war (pre-comments) was partially due to the unique, though he did not realize it, way he had conducted himself and treated his command. He was from a diferent generation and what was done by fellow commanders in the Third Reich was probably inconcievable to him - He may not have believed some of it. As for the evolution of his politics to the right: when he returned from France, he may have been physically OK, but mentally, he was bitter, frustrated and resentful. As he saw his actions as legal and honorable (with considerable basis in law) and wrongly transposed that conduct onto all others wearing the uniform, he felt that Germans were being falsely persecuted as they had been after WWI. I think that his statement in the 1945 letter is indicative of this misconception (all others acted the same). I should note that his treatment was slightly harsher compared to how he had treated prisoners, so again, he wrongly assumes that all prisoners had been well treated by Germans (though some of that text is also political manipulation of the civilian reader I think). I think the Adenauer quote best assesses the situation with his remarks shortly after his release : "foolish" and not beneficial to the cause of those still imprisoned. His own writing in Damals und Danach also reflects the bitterness and anger he has at this point of time. I have to wonder what he would have said a decade later once he had healed a bit - but he was done publishing and speaking by then (for obvious reasons).--Rwberndt (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last couple days, particularly the professional tenor of your "wordsmithing" has been of great benefit to the quality of this article. I happen to have read some of the correspondence you added the mention of, so I am thrilled to see you noticed a reference for that relationship. I had left "ail" in the quote because Ramcke mis-spelled all in the actual letter, but perhaps it is better corrected. Thanks for your efforts !--Rwberndt (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another question on military history

Looking at your work, you seem to be a military historian. Another individual has undertaken the daunting (seeming overwhelming) task of creating articles for all ships of the Germanic WWI fleet. His (parsecboy) work is remarkable, but an article on the SMS Prinz Adalbert cites a reasonable reference (now) that states there were 3 survivors of her sinking. General Ramcke, who was in some ways closer to his military comrades than his family (he saw his family a lot less) relates in his autobiography the military notice that the ship was lost (to the wrong english ship) with all hands. It seems that, given his closeness with other servicemen, that if any had survived he would have known and mentioned it in the book. He had 2+ decades to learn of and seek them out. Yet he said lost with "the entire crew". He even kept a flag I believe to have been from the ship as a rememberance for the rest of his life. Which reference is right ? Do you know of resources that can clarify this disconnect between two 3rd-party sources ?--Rwberndt (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that ref. It is perfect. I have edited the Ramcke page and included it. It appears Ramcke missed that detail.--Rwberndt (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Battle of Debrecen order of battle 2

Hi W. B. Wilson, thanks for the message. I wasn't really sure what all the article entailed, but assumed it was a work in progress that you would be returning to shortly. Have yourself a great weekend, and happy editing :). -- WikHead (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get to this. It was obviously gotten to by someone else anyone. Thankyou for doing Operation Solstice and 47th Army; that's really helpful. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tricolore vs Tricoleur

W.B. Wilson,

Thanks for your thanks. Well, I did not correct your "Tricoleur", I simply added my "Tricolore".

Your spelling ending in "leur" looks lovely to my French eyes. Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30th Grenadier SS

Thanks for the heads-up, and the 5th and 6th Guards army articles. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Souvenir de Namur

Merci. Je ne connaissais pas cette plaque à la mémoire des quatre zouaves.

+ Have been very busy outside Wikiland & will be for he next few months; however, your msgs are always welcome.

Cordialement,

Frania W.