Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German tank aces

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that while this is indeed a concept invented by popular writers post WWII, it is notable as such, but the article should be edited to reflect this. I'm not sure that there is consensus to rename the article, but discussions about this can continue on the article talk page if needed.  Sandstein  14:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German tank aces[edit]

German tank aces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Plainly put, there never was a "German tank ace". By that I mean that neither the term "Panzer ace" ("Panzerass") nor the "concept" (whatever that means) did exist among the Waffen-SS, the German wartime propaganda or the Wehrmacht. I may be proven otherwise by RS, but so far I have not read the term or in any primary sources or military historiography. (There are two exceptions of the latter, I will mention later but these actually support my argument.) Of course there were German tank commanders who became the subject of German propaganda, notably Michael Wittmann. It is also true that U-boat commanders and pilots received the most prestigous German military order of WWII, the Knight's Cross, when they had sunk a certain number of enemy ships or shot down a certain number of enemy planes, respectively. But even them were not referred to as "aces" (Asse) by German propaganda. No soldier of the Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS, however, received a Knight's Cross just because he had destroyed a certain number of enemy tanks. If these men were considered for a Knight's Cross, it was for a single deed which was supposed to have significantly influenced the outcome of combat and been carried out "on one's own initiative" ("aus eigenem Entschluss"). Kurt Knispel, arguably the most "successful" "German tank ace", for example, never received a Knight's Cross. (Roman Töppel, "Das Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes und der Kampfwert militärischer Verbände," in: Ztschr. f. Heereskunde 76 (2012), pp. 180-190, here pp. 180-1.)

The article claims rather vaguely: "To the extent that the concept existed, it was mainly advanced by the Waffen-SS as part of its contributions to Nazi Germany's propaganda campaigns," referenced with Steven Zaloga's Panther vs Sherman. Battle of the Bulge, 1944. Oxford: Osprey Publishing 2008, p. 36. I will quote him at length, because his publication is the one and only source so far. Even he notes that "the concept of 'tank aces' was not particularly prevalent in World War II, even in the Wehrmacht. It was most common in the Waffen-SS, which was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of the Nazi state. It was especially common regarding the Tiger bataillons which enjoyed an envelope of invulnerability for one year [...]. In Heer panzer units the concept was not widespread, and military awards focused on mission performance, not an arbitrary metric like tank kills". Zaloga's claims do not support the definition of our article, since the top three "tank aces" fought with the Wehrmacht, not the Waffen-SS. How did they become "tank aces", given the "concept" wasn't prevalent in the Wehrmacht? And how could the "concept" have been especially common regarding "certain bataillons" and not with tank commanders in general? Did man and machine become one? It seems as if the fame of the German tank Tiger II, propagandized as a "Wunderwaffe" (wonder weapon), has somehow been transposed upon its commanders, but that is clearly an ex post development, i. e. the term was attached to them after WW II. Zaloga does not provide any reference for his claims anyway, which does not speak for their reliability.

As I said, the term "Panzerass" is not to be found in German propaganda of WW II. The term "ace" in relation to individual military success, so to speak, originated with French military propaganda of WW I. The as de l'aviation, (the flying ace) was used for fighter pilots who had shot down a certain number of enemy aircraft (usually more than five). It has been picked up particularly by the US Air Service and its propaganda. (On that see Linda R. Robertson: The Dream of Civilized Warfare: World War I Flying Aces and the American Imagination. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis 2003, esp. pp. 87-113.) Two things should be noted: First, although, fighter pilots like Boelcke, Immelmann, and Richthofen figured prominently in German propaganda, the term "Fliegerass" was not used. Second, the term "ace" is nohing like a concept, but rather an image, a myth. As Peter Fritzsche put it: "The ace in combat is an immediately recognizable image. In control of his fate, handling his airplane with great courage and skill but also with an envied recklessness, the aviator appeared to be a genuine war hero, comparable to cavalrymen in Napoleon's era or chivalrous knights in the Middle Ages. [...] To this day, myths opposing the individual, distinctive combat of the aces to the industrial mass war on the ground remain deeply embedded in Western folklore." (A Nation of Fliers: German Aviation and the Popular Imagination. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.) 1992, p. 64.) The term "Fliegerass" is nowadays present and being used in German language referring to fighter pilots like Richthofen, Mölders and the like. But that is a fairly recent development (see, e.g., this google ngraph) and to a limited degree it became part of popular culture through special interest literature. It is not used as a "concept" by historiography, though. Instead, the image of the "ace" itself has become the subject of historiographical research. (See the examples of Robertson and Fritzsche, cited above.)

The same applies to the term "tank ace", minus the historiographical interest. The term originated within English special interest literature to purport the image of individual, distinct combat (and to sell books, I might add, by hooking up with Western folklore). One might just take a look at the literature in which the term "tank ace" is used. If Zaloga claims that the "concept" of "panzer aces" has received considerable attention in recent years, then he certainly does not refer to military historiography, but rather to special interest literature by publishers like Osprey, Stroud, Stackpole, Fedorowicz, Zenith Press and so forth. Take Franz Kurowski, former Nazi propagandist himself, as an example. It is difficult to keep track of his numerous publications in German, but a quite comprehensive list can be found here[1]. He chose some fairly martial titles, but he did not use the term "Panzerasse" whatsoever. Who came up with the "Panzer aces"? Please note, that JJ Fedorowicz followed up with Infantry Aces: The German Soldier in Combat in WWII (1994), also by Kurowski. It's the same book selling scheme, but equally ahistorical nonsense.

So far I have found two RS in which there are references to "Panzer aces". One is by controversial author Jörg Friedrich who speaks of generals Hermann Hoth and Georg-Hans Reinhardt as "Panzerasse" (Das Gesetz des Krieges, 1993, p. 220.). By this he unwittingly demonstrates, that "Panzer aces" is not a defined "concept" referring to successful tank commanders. The other is The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser /Davies who discuss Kurowski's titles, but not as a "concept" whatsoever.

To sum it up: "German tank aces" is a phrase used within English (mostly American) militaria literature. The term not only builds upon the myth of the fighter ace, but incorporates this myth and therefore has no analytical value whatsoever. It is not found within military historiography. As a "concept" it is WP:FRINGE and not sufficiently notable for a dedicated article in Wikipedia. (WP:NFRINGE). Instead Wikipedia provides unwarranted promotion for the "concept" (WP:PROFRINGE). In contrast to "Flying ace" or simply "ace" where there are independent reliable sources analyzing this term, there are virtually no such RS on the "German tank ace". Thus the article is beyond improvement. Instead Wikipedia is not a dictionary does apply. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure why this has been taken to AfD before there was any discussion on the talk page... Regardless, the concept is clearly notable as it is covered by the multiple reliable sources cited in the "Overview" section of the article - I'm not sure why these are being dismissed? This nomination is also rather confusing as the article discusses the concept of a "tank ace" critically, noting that it is a disputed concept, so the WP:TNT-style argument above doesn't really apply. This is an article about the alleged concept of a tank ace, and not an endorsement of such a thing. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With all due respect to Steven Zaloga, who is apparently a more critical reader than many of his fellow author's at Osprey's, but imho his publication does not qualify as a RS. It's an 80pp brochure with many grand illustrations, but lacking any references. Zaloga's depiction of the German perspective is based upon "the numerous Foreign Military Studies prepared by German military officers about the Ardennes campaign" (including, e.g., two reports by Jochen Peiper), i.e. by the de:Operational History (German) Section. The work of this body of former German officers has been critically examined recently ( Esther-Julia Howell: Von den Besiegten lernen?, Munich 2015]]. The 12 books in his bibliography (Kurowski is not among them) are also from the militaria camp. Btw, I admire how you managed to read my argument, check upon its claims and the references and came up with an answer in just three minutes.--Assayer (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Osprey books don't have footnotes, Zaloga always includes multiple pages worth of references (including to the primary sources he regularly uses) at the conclusion of his books, as you note, so it's not accurate to claim that his work is unreferenced. You also appear to misunderstand WP:RS: Zaloga is a widely-published and cited expert on the topic of armoured warfare, and whatever the shortcomings of Osprey publishing, they're a professional outfit which exercises quality control (albeit not as much as they probably should in some instances) so the work can be considered reliable. I don't think that many people are going to read all of your over-long statement, and there's no reason to do so given that it's not relevant to Wikipedia's criteria for deletion and implies that you haven't actually bothered to read the content of the article (the topic is notable, and the content is OK and can be improved, so there are no grounds for deletion). There are certainly grounds to move and improve the article, but that's an content discussion which you didn't bother to start before launching this process out of the blue, not a deletion discussion. Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pls see below; Original comment -- as someone who has contributed to the article, I advocate deletion. Here's the version as I came across it in 2015: link. It was one of the articles that launched me on the "Waffen-SS mythology" journey :-) . The article continues to attract (mostly new) editors who attempt to restore it to the prior state on a fairly regular basis:
  • September 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016 Edit summary: "This is the list of German panzer aces. Stop. No need of sociological junk"
  • February 2016 Edit summary: "Reads like a tabloid whit all those quations, not very encyclopedic. This should be merely a list, how invulnerable the Tiger I was doesnt matter, or that all tanks aces were bulshwalkers does not belong here."
  • Also from February 2016, restoring the dubious "kills"
As far as the term is concerned, I suspect it originates with the prolific Franz Kurowski whose Panzer Aces, Luftwaffe Aces, Panzergrenadier Aces and Infantry Aces (!) continue to be popular WWII "militaria literature". The term "Panzer ace" appears in The Myth of the Eastern Front in quotation marks in the discussions on Kurowski.
At best, this could be deleted and redirected to either Waffen-SS in popular culture or perhaps to Franz_Kurowski#Portrayal of Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS. Alternatively, a new article could be created under the name "Panzer ace" in popular culture or similar. Secondary sources for this would be Zalooga and Smelser & Davies.
As far as the article under discussion, the most recent version, which I was actually planning to address, but got distracted, introduced sources such as Patrick Agte and similar. So I suspect that trying to maintain neutrality of this article would be an on-going issue. Thus I advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Infrequent, and rapidly reverted/corrected, reversions to a less-good previous version aren't a reason to delete articles or their history IMO - note that these can, and probably will, be re-added via Wikipedia mirrors anyway based on my experience with similar articles. I'm sympathetic to an alternate name as suggested below though. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The latest dubious version (diff) was there for a month. So, I'd say WP:TNT the current version, and start from scratch with a new name. Please see suggested draft below. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I created Draft:"Panzer ace" in popular culture by moving the academically supported content to the draft version, and addressing some of the concerns raised in the nomination. I limited the list to those commanders who are described in RS as "Panzer aces".
I would still advocate deletion of the current page, to remove the access to the edit history and avoid restorations of dubious material. After deletion, the name can be redirected to the new article "Panzer ace" in popular culture, if the consensus is indeed to go with a revised name. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this effort is an ill-advised piecemeal approach. I do not see sufficient RS for a "Panzer Ace" in popular culture-article. As far as I know this topic has not yet been adressed in military or cultural historiography. Steven Zaloga (I have adressed the reliability of his work above) does not deal with the issue of "tank ace" as a myth, but accepts it as being a "concept". Moreover I doubt that the "Pancer Ace" figures so prominently in popular culture that it would deserve a dedicated article. Instead, I would suggest an article Ace (military) on the terminology. There are sufficient RS to trace the emergence of that term, its meaning and image. The equally ahistorical Submarine ace could be merged and redirected to that article. Ideally even the article Flying Ace, which at present is completely devoid of academic historiography on the subject, could (and should) be merged into such an article.
My own research suggests, that the term "tank ace" was used as early as the 1950ies, but not as a concept. Rather it was a loose, even sloppy term to describe military leaders like Guderian and tank commanders like Wittmann, but also someone who managed to destroy more than five German tanks with an anti-tank gun. That underlines that it is the term "Ace" that deserves scrutiny, not its various ramifications.--Assayer (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article provides multiple references which discuss the concept of the role of a "Panzer ace" in popular culture. Smelser and Davies discuss aspects of this in considerable detail in their book, as does Zaloga in several works. I also refer you to searches in Amazon.com for "tank ace" and "panzer ace" which show that multiple popular (and generally awful) books have been written on the topic - it is these which Smelser and Davies critique and Zaloga and similar are responding to. Google Books searches provide similar results (eg, [2]). Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, the term indeed is restricted to "militaria literature" in the popular culture, but Wikipedia caters to the general public, and not to a scholarly audience. Given the fact that the article survived in its "WWII German military romancer" version until 2015 (I assume copy pasted from Achtungpanzer.com), and that there are consistent attempts to revert it to that state, I'd say there's interest in the "concept", however misguided it might be. On the other hand, I did not know that Ace (military) does not exist, and I agree that it would be an appropriate article to create and discuss the term there. I also agree that "U-boat ace" is an ahistorical concept. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not deny that there is some interest in what some have called the "German tank (panzer) ace". Of course you'll find multiple books carrying the phrase in its title. But I argue that the idea of a "concept" is fringe theory and does not merit a dedicated article. If you don't take my word for it, you may consider what Nigel Newton, Chief Executive of Bloomsbury, said when Bloomsbury bought Osprey: "The acquisition of Osprey increases our presence in niche special interest markets". Pageviews Analysis [3] suggests that the Flying ace article generates about 3,5 times more interest than the German tank aces and Michael Wittmann alone is viewed more than 3 times as often. Besides, I do not see a reason why a topic with a popular interest to it should not be treated in a scholarly sound manner. Otherwise we need not to bother about RS as vetted by the scholarly community. In a sense Franz Kurowski's work is more readable than many scholarly books. Neither do I see a particular reason to start a Panzer ace in popular culture-article instead of using a redirect to Ace (military), where the various military "Aces" can be dealt with. --Assayer (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Panzer ace in popular culture; delete current page per K.e.coffman. Thanks Assayer for doing all this hard work in the research; this concept needs to be clearly discussed as a post-World War II creation, seemingly with some roots in the Waffen-SS, and not something that was around at the time. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Panzer ace in popular culture as it seems to be mainly a post-war subject-matter of discussion and writing; thereby, deleting current page. I would like to see some further addition to the article, and it should be balanced without any "WWII German military romancer" version, nor too much reliance on any single author/historian; of the two articles I do believe the draft article now put forth is the better. Kierzek (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the move. However, it seems to me that the suggestion to delete the prior history is a violation of copyright laws if any material whatsoever form the old article is retained in the moved article because it removes the attribution of material that is a condition of contributing the material to Wikipedia. Also a comment, there were no Fliegerasse because they are referred to as Experten. I didn't search very far, but the highest ranked Google uses of Panzerexpert seem to be associated with games. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the topic is notable per WP:GNG due to the level of coverage it has received. The main issues appear to be regarding content and how we choose to cover the issue (or about what name we give the article), not that it actually is covered in Wikipedia at all. The fact that some interpretations of the concept might be fringe-like doesn't disqualify us from covering it (and them) as long as we address that issue, likewise if some of the sources which cover it are considered to be less reliable than others doesn't prevent us from using / mentioning them and the role they have played in developing the concept (as long as it is with care and appropriate attribution, and academic reviews of them included if available, etc.). These are all questions of editorial judgment and as such I don't think AFD is appropriate in this case. By all means ensure the article addresses the issue that it is disputed / ahistorical or whatever, but the fact that it is widely covered in popular literature means many people are interested in the topic so why not provide the information to our readers in a critical manner which might educate and inform them? Indeed recent changes to the article look promising to me and suggest that that is an achievable objective. Anotherclown (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move I agree per above. Move this article to Panzer ace in pop culture and delete this article as it does not warrant inclusion into the English Wikipedia. seanhaley1 (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Move to "Panzer ace" in popular culture: The article has been much improved since the AfD started, especially with the removal of dubious "successful commanders" list, so I no longer advocate deletion. I'd support moving to a new name, with the proviso that the discussions would continue about potentially merging the content into Ace (military). If not against copyright rules, I still suggest starting a new article from scratch, using the material from the current version. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As someone who wrote a reasonable chunk of the current article, I'd certainly object to the history of my contributions being deleted. Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough; I guess we'll just to have to deal :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you move content, you need to retain the historical contributions attribution. If you copy in select content to a new article, you need to attribute it Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Panzer ace to match text. The question of who counts as one is probably subjective, but if they are selected by an author, not as WP:OR, I see no objection. "in popular culture" normally means film etc and is not appropriate to a historical topic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that this not a "historical topic" but rather a contemporary creation, mostly via popular history and militaria literature. Panzer ace is currently a redirect, and it will continue to function in this capacity, so if anyone searches for "panzer ace", they will be directed to this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/German_tank_aces&oldid=1068873385"