Talk:Colonel General

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

• Article: de:Generaloberst
• Corresponding English-language article: none, perhaps place at Colonel-General?
• Worth doing because: It's the next rank below Generalfeldmarschall in the WWII German military hierarchy, and the German article looks comprehensive
• Originally Requested by: Ellsworth 17:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Status: Translation done -- Jmabel | Talk 08:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Other notes: It's possible that some of the names -- especially the Austrian names -- could use further work to match the "correct" forms under which articles might exist. Also, I've made a couple of commented-out notes in the article on some major missing information about Austria. Basically, the dates for which this rank was used in Austria are unclear; so is whether the Austrian list is complete. Obviously, lists for Germany in other than the Wehrmacht era could be added. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:49, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

"Generaloberst mit dem Rang eines Generalfeldmarschalls": correct might be: "Generaloberst im Rang eines Generalfeldmarschalls"

Every source I have, including original German publications from the Second World War, list the title of Colonel General with Field Marshall rank as Generaloberst mit dem Rang eines Generalfeldmarschalls -Husnock 4 Jan 2004

Sounds right to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:38, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 acknowledging sources 2 List needed 3 Austrian colonel-generals 4 Lost in Translation?

[edit] acknowledging sources

The following was removed by Mikkalai. I restored it. He removed it again. "This article draws heavily on the corresponding article in the German-language Wikipedia." I'm not going to have an edit war over this, but I think the removal is absolutely wrong. The German and Austrian material here came almost entirely from my translation of material from the German-language Wikipedia. I have no other source to cite for it. If they have made errors, then I have necessarily replicated their errors, and they don't cite sources for their material (or at least they didn't at the time I translated). This is exactly why one cites sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List needed

I invite someone to move out all the names from htis article into a seperate list. I feel they are really cluttering up the article. Opinions? -Husnock 09:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Austrian colonel-generals

It says now in the article: Colonel General (Generaloberst) was also the second-highest rank in the Austrian Army, although it was not used between 1915 and 1918. It's my understanding that it was exactly the opposite: the rank of Generaloberst was introduced in 1915 following the German model. -62.183.251.50 08:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lost in Translation?

I am not entirely happy with Generaloberst being translated as Colonel-General. The logic of this seems to come from the fact that a colonel in german is "Oberst" a word in german that is also an adjective meaning utmost or superior. The title Oberst is therefore an appropriate derrivation as a noun to apply to the leader of a regiment. Generaloberst is best translated as "Senior General" and (given the time for citation) has been used in other Enlglish language historical articles when refering to those who held the rank. Breakfast in French is "petit-dejeuner" but we don't refer to eating "little lunch" when breakfasting in Paris and, that said, I'm not even sure if colonel-general works as a literal translation as the "oberst" changes meaning in a subtle sense - e.g. saying "colonel general" would be as bad as tranlating "Air Chief Marshal" into language X to appear to a speaker of X as "Air Head of Tribe Marshal" if you get my drift. I am not sure how this relates to the armies of Russia or any other country mentioned but I suspect the same principle would apply. Dainamo 00:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Literal translation is "General Colonel". "Colonel General" is used by nearly every professional rank comparison guide I've ever seen. Documents at the Nuremburg trials also list the Generaloberst defendents as having the rank of "Colonel General" and some German officers from World War II, who were interviewed in later life (and who knew English) would call themselves Colonel General. So, as it is an accepted translation by sources used in the article, not to mention many others, changing it to a different translation would not be supported. -00:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of the above. Thank you for your insight Dainamo 00:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Dainamo. "Generaloberst" in the German original rather means something like "the top general" - after all, that's the root of the word "oberst" too: the superlative form of "ober" (upper). I think a more correct translation would be something like your "Senior General" or maybe "Superior General".

Unfortunately, the anonymous poster is also right. Apparently the first english speakers who had to translate this rank (at Nuremberg, maybe?) made the mistake of calling it "Colonel General", which seems logical when you have Lieutenant Gen. and Major Gen., but is never the less incorrect. Anyway, the error stands, and that's the internationally accepted term. --dllu 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)