Talk:Fighter Pilots' Revolt incident

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

Comment[edit]

Dear editors, I believe that the term "revolt" ist over-emphasizing and misleading. It implicates the use of resistance, if not violence. According to Steinhoff, Lützow and Galland, this was not the case. It was, however, an uncredited verbal expression of critisism about the Luftwaffe high command. The critics have been in contact for many years and therefor Steinhoff places the term Verschwörung: conspiracy. The reaction of Göring and Hitler was rough, but nobody was sentenced officially.

I suggest to move the article to Fighter Pilots Conspiracy.  Done

After war it became fashion amongst german military protagonists to point out their opposition the the german high command. Undoubtly there have been differences about how to win the war, but to oppose against the regime itself was a different story. Neither Galland nor Lützow nor Steinhoff can been seen as participants of a revolt against germans political leaders. They expressed their doubts about how to best kill the allies and were disciplined moderatly.

Best regards,--Greenx 11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The external link Interview with Adolf Galland has been broken by the shutdown of AOL Hometown. Richard Lugg (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galland`s suicidal thoughts[edit]

I have read Galland`s autobiography, a few times in fact, and cannot remember anything about him wanting to take his own life or that his girlfriend pleaded with Hitler to stop Galland from killing himself. Where is the evidence for all this ?
Nor is there anything about it in this article.

Also this line doesn`t make sense :
Galland arranged for a meeting with Göring. However, Galland was not invited to this meeting

--JustinSmith (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background (expand)[edit]

It is customary practice to fully identify individuals when they are first mentioned in an article, maybe give a brief background. Unfortunately this reads like it was lifted straight out of the middle of another article, with players like Adolph Galland and Hermann Goering identified only by last name. It is several paragraphs before Galland has a hotlink on his name and he is never fully named. I suggest that "Background" needs a new introductory paragraph that reflects this shortfall.

Later in the article is a list of participants; while Adoph Galland was not present at the meeting, it is documented that he listened to the discussion via an open phone line and discussed the meeting with other attenders.GeeBee60 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move[edit]

I suggest moving the article to:

  • "Fighter Pilots' Revolt" (in quotation marks)

Please see this entry from the encyclopedia edited by David T. Zabecki: Germany at War: 400 Years of Military History.

Would there be any issues with this? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ugly and is a bit confusing?
It seems to me that the goal of this and other moves (I'm primarily thinking of "Panzer ace" in popular culture) is to de-romanticise WWII Germany. I can understand the motivation. There is indeed a lot of romantic nonsense about the Wehrmacht published for popular audiences. But we aren't going to move Revolt of the Admirals to "Revolt of the Admirals" incident, and we shouldn't. If it's the case that Fighter Pilots' Revolt is simply not the common name than we should just rename it with a descriptive title. Parker, op. cit., calls it the Mutiny of the Aces, so it may well be that we need a descriptive name. Overy, in The Bombing War: Europe, 1939–1945, discusses it briefly but without naming it. Others say "mutiny [revolt] of the fighter pilots", which looks like a translation of the common German phrase. Some put the term in scare quotes, some do not. Srnec (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zabecki (linked above) lists in quotes. I don't see it being a "revolt" -- a group of officers went to Goering to complain. Is there a better way to describe this? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Revolt of the Admirals wasn't a revolt either. The "Fighter Pilot's Revolt" was perhaps a mutiny. I dont' know. One description would be "Meeting between Göring and Luftwaffe officers on 19 January 1945". I would have to double-check that date. I got it from German WP.
I was going to post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, but since you responded so promptly here... You gutted the article at the same time you moved it, removing paragraphs of sourced content and in subsequent edits removing the sources from the bibliography as "likely non RS" or "appears to be WP:QS". The resultant article is pretty useless. How sure are you that the sources you removed were not RS for the claims they were citing? Srnec (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed large chunks of exposition as I felt it was going into a lot of unnecessary detail dating back to 1943 2015 version, while very little space was being devoted to the "revolt" itself. I subsequently removed books that were not used for citations. Kurt Braatz (as I understand it from de.wiki article) is mostly a sefl-published author, while Gordon Williamson (writer) is primarily an author of picture books, with a strong apologist bend. Pen & Sword Aviation is a somewhat questionable publisher, etc. Hooton would probably be okay though, if he indeed covers this incident. From my recollections, I could find very little on this event in English, and the best I found was Zabecki which devotes very little space to it. As I understand, most of what's available came from the surviving participants of the events so their testimony should be taken with a grain of salt.
I like the suggestion "Meeting of ..." for the article title, as it's both neutral and avoids creating the impression that it was some sort of a revolt. Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
19 January is definitely the day. I think we should put it up for WP:RM. We could use "fighter pilots" instead of "Luftwaffe officers". Or any other descriptive title: "Dispute between Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe and General der Jagdflieger", although that's a lot of German! (I still do not find the original title as problematic as you do.)
There is material out there. This book would be valuable, but it is a primary source. These should be taken with a grain of salt, yes, but we should let professional historians choose how much. In this case, I'd like evidence that Steinhoff (a participant) is reliable enough on the facts for historians. As for the material you removed: the citations were to Caldwell & Muller, Hooton, Overy and Kaplan. All bad? Srnec (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the content was bad, but I felt it was off topic, since some of these citations covered events in 1943:

  • During the late summer, 1943, USAAF fighters operated over German air space for the first time. Several aircraft crashed near Aachen near Germany's west border. Galland presented these wrecks as proof that the Luftwaffe faced an enemy that would soon use fighter aircraft to escort heavy bombers to industrial targets inside Germany. Galland submitted his findings to Göring. Göring was livid with Galland and the fighter force. Göring called the report the "rantings of a worn-out defeatist," and gave Galland an "order" that no Allied fighters had crossed into Germany.[1][2] Göring declared that the only possible reason for the wrecked USAAF fighter was that short range fighters ran out of fuel at high altitude and "...were shot down much further west... and glided quite a distance before they crashed."[3]

References

  1. ^ Caldwell & Muller 2007, p. 114.
  2. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 265.
  3. ^ Speer 1997, pp. 397–398.

My edit summary was: "condense extra long exposition and intricate detail out of proportion to the section on the actual event". I remember reading the article and thinking: "where is the revolt?" :-)

I personally like: "Meeting between Göring and Luftwaffe officers on 19 January 1945" as neutral; I'm also okay with the existing name. You could put up three options for the RM: (1) previous; (2) current; (3) "Meeting between Göring and Luftwaffe officers on 19 January 1945", and see what the feedback is. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Fighter Pilots' Revolt incident. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Fighter Pilots' Revolt" incident → Meeting between Göring and Luftwaffe officers on 19 January 1945 – The current title is odd and confusing. We don't use scare quotes for the Revolt of the Admirals. The original name, Fighter Pilots' Revolt, may not be the common name. In that case, I propose a descriptive title. (Luftwaffe should be italicised.)
I do not intend the title change to alter the scope: the article should contain the dispute between Galland and Göring as background and it does not need to abruptly stop at 19 January. The personal meeting that day is merely the climax. See the talk section above for background to this move proposal. Srnec (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Galland's own words[edit]

Per the reference cited (please see reference for full details, this is just a summary), in which Galland was personally interviewed, Galland mentioned the meeting with Goering where the Fighter’s Revolt took place. He did not mention an exact date, but I believe it was early March 1943 (Major Joachim Muncheberg was at the meeting and he was KIA March 23, 1943). In the meeting, which was held at one of Goering's confiscated estates, Goering berated the fighter forces, accusing them of cowardice etc. Lutzow stood up and challenged Goering. Galland said he thought at time, that he had just watched a friend commit suicide. Indeed, Goering, purple with rage, told Lutzow that he could have him shot. Then Galland stood up and spoke at Goering with words that ended to the effect "If I am a coward, then I am not worthy to wear these", then Galland took off his Knight's Cross with Oak leaves, Swords and Diamonds, Spanish Cross in Gold with Swords and Diamonds, Iron Cross, and Wound badge, and threw them down on the table in front of Goering. Then Lutzow, Trautloff, and Muncheberg took off their Knight's Crosses etc. and threw them on the table also. This wasn't a minor incident. Lives were on the line. Goering told Galland he was going to have him shot. Galland also mentioned that Waffen SS General Felix Steiner, who was a friend of his, heard about Goering's plan in Berlin and lent Galland a personal Waffen SS bodyguard for protection to discourage would-be assassins. [1]Mr. Tudball (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The German Aces Speak: World War II Through the Eyes of Four of the Luftwaffe's Most Important Commanders by Colin Heaton and Anne-Marie Lewis (ISBN-9780760341155)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fighter_Pilots%27_Revolt_incident&oldid=1213766401"