Talk:Comparative military ranks of World War II

Contents

1 Hermann Göring's title 2 Empire of the Sun 3 Translations 4 Non-corresponding rank names 5 Russian Lieutenants and Japanese ranks

Hermann Göring's title

Didn't Herman Goreing hold the unique rank of Reichmarshal? --PaulinSaudi 02:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)]]

He held the title Reichsmarschall des Grossdeutsches Reiches. Reichsfuhrer SS, held by Himmler but the latter was more political and covered the Gestapo of the SS, not just the Waffen SS and Allegmeine SS shown here. Dainamo 14:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Paul, Added the above title (and corrected my version which was slightly wrong above) Dainamo 15:07, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I was bold enough to add the genitive-"es" after Grossendeutsch to continue the grammar job, and took the chance* of removing those same letters before deutsch (*my high school German from 15 years ago is getting a little rusty...).  :)  --Wernher 00:35, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi thanks for that, my high school German only got a "C" grade so I admit not being fully up to speed! Subsequently I have looked the title up under Goring in the encyclopedia Britannica and they give it as Grossdeutschen Reiches not as I put it. Dainamo 00:07, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Of course, it's Grossdeutchen Reiches as you cite, the genitive -"es" only being applied to the Reich part of the clause. (Referring to my disclaimer: that's what 'rusty' means when it comes to foreign language proficiency...) I wonder whether we should also try and get a genuine German double-s (ß) in there, to complete the historical fix. --Wernher 20:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does anything suggest that this rank is an airforce rank and not a supreme rank covering all services? Should it be colored black? Zocky 05:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Empire of the Sun

In the interest of historical accuracy we should absolutely try and get a picture of the Japanese Imperial flag (red "sunbeams" radiating out from the central sun symbol) to put in the table instead of the modern flag presently used. --Wernher 00:35, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've located the flag in question, the Japanese Naval Ensign, on Flags Of The World (http://flagspot.net/flags/jp^.html#ensign). Flagspot's disclaimer (http://flagspot.net/flags/disclaim.html) seems positive towards Wikipedia-type uses of their material, so the only work left is scaling down the image. --Wernher 18:37, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So there, it's done. I wonder whether we should try to coerce the proportions of the flag to be more like most of the others, but am not sure — flags have heraldry-defined official proportions IIRC. Any suggestions? --Wernher 03:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I won't amend this as yet, but wasn't the flag of state still the same as it it today, with the flag shown being only relevant as a naval ensign (such as the white ensign being used by the Royal Navy)? Dainamo 00:07, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are right that the 'rising sun' flag, as it's sometimes known, was in fact the naval ensign. However, it was used as the 'war flag' of all military services in the Japanese Empire, and as such denotes WWII Japan in much the same way that the infamous swastika flag denotes Nazi-Germany. I therefore think that it should be left standing as it is (aside from any layout/proportions changes that might be in order, that is). --Wernher 20:10, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Translations

Is there a good reason why the German ranks in German but the Soviet ones are translated into English?

This is a valid point, and I considered the correct way was to put them in their respective languages. The problem with the Soviet Union was twofold. The first is a minor problem of there not being a single language of the former soviet union. Secondly, assuming the first problem can be overcome because of the overwhelming dominance of Russian, we have the Cyrillic alphabet which is unreadable to most English speakers. Having said that, the Japanese ranks have been presented in their own language but in Latin text and I guess there is no reason why this cannot be done for the Russian ranks. If anyone can do this accurately then I see no obvious reason why it can't be altered. Dainamo 11:27, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done Dainamo 11:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Russian military ranks are derived from the Western ones for the most part. I don't believe that Russian adaptations of Captain, Lieutenant and Major serve any meaningful purpose because these ranks are almost universally translated into their English equivalents anyway (Polkovnik, Colonel, could be an exception because the word is of Slavic origin). Giving adopted translations is enough diversity; for those who want to reaaly know the native spelling in both Latin and Cyrillic, there is a historical review at Russian military ranks. DmitryKo 12:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we have original names for German and Japanese, we must have it for Russian too. If all those ranks were translated into English, this page would be rather dull and uninteresting, but OTOH, it may be useful as a reference. Maybe we should add another table with translated names?

Oh, and the other thing, the NATO equivalent column. NATO neither existed in WWII nor is it a universally acclaimed international organization today. We can show what the equivalent NATO rank is today, but we shouldn't use it as a header column. Zocky 13:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consider the following:

• German ranks are both Western-based and Latin-based.
• Japanese ranks stand out because they are neither based on the Western ranks nor the writing is based on Latin alphabet (although there is official transcription system).
• Russian ranks are Western-based but the Russian alphabet is not Latin-based (and there is no officially-acclaimed transliteration standard, such as Hanyu Pinyin or Nihon-shiki romanizations).
• There are no articles on Japanese military ranks or German military ranks, but there is detailed enough article on Russian military ranks.

That said, I have added the Cyrillic names after looking at Ranks and Insignia of NATO. If you really think that transliterated versions are important, I will add them somewhere as well. But please don't revert to a version of the table that is simply incorrect. DmitryKo 17:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would dispute this. Rank terms such as Podpolkovnik, whether 100% correct transliterations or not, are recognised in English. They are much more useful than direct translations such as "Counter Admiral", which mean nothing in English (better to use the direct equivalent of Rear Admiral than such a bizarre term). -- Necrothesp 10:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Podpolkovnik is, simply, Sub-Polkovnik. Counter Admiral is the adopted version of Konteradmiral/Kontr-Admiral, which is, in turn, a Rear Admiral rank as mentioned in both corresponding articles. Why the ranks are not hyperlinked anyway? DmitryKo 11:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you ask a German what oberst means, they'll tell you it simply means "colonel". Of course it has an ethimology, which we could use to translate it into English. The point is that there is no exact science to translating these ranks, so there's no sense in doing so on this page where they're just listed. Listing them in Cyrillics is about as useful as listing Japanese ranks in katakana. The ranks should be linked and the original spelling and meaning of those words explained in those articles.

And again, NATO ranks are entirely secondary to this table and should not be used as the header column. Zocky

Please don't revert to an older version that is incorrect.

NATO ranks are the one and the only international system that is recognized widely enough; let's just leave it where it is, or we'll be overwhelmed by huge comparison tables. If and when even more widely recognized and non Western-centric system appears, we'll switch to it.

The purpose of this table is to provide inter-military comparative ranks, not to teach native spelling; Senior/Junior Lieutenant vs First/Second Lieutenant gives enough insight on the matter. I'd like to see Japanese ranks translated for the same reasons, as there is still no historical article on the matter. (BTW don't really think Japanese ranks are written in katakana; hiragana or maybe even kanji seems more appropriate.)

I wouldn't mind using transliteration if there was one recognized transliterations system akin to Hepburn, so the readers are not confused with multiple variations of for ex. Старший (Starhy, Starshiy, Starshyy, Starshi, Starshyi, Starshii, Starshiyi and even Starshij and Staršiì (eek) as per official systems) that require at least basic knowledge of Russian/Cyrillic. Including transilerations of common words such as Sub, Senior and Junior is pretty useless IMHO and removing either Cyrillic or translated names harms either Russian-speaking or non-speaking readers respectively. DmitryKo 13:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the encyclopaedia in English language. Put Cyrillic spelling in articles about individual ranks. It doesn't matter what NATO is now - these are ranks from WWII - NATO ranks are approximate modern equivalents, not the other way around. If there's something factually wrong with the table now, go ahead and correct it, but leave it in English. Zocky 19:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, now I see why German ranks are provided as is - all because it's Enlgish-language encyclopaedia! Do you believe that Japanese ranks are provided in plain English as well? What's your point - do you think that writing 'General-leytenant' makes just anyone spell it as "Генерал-лейтенант" /gʲɛnʲɛʀˈal lʲɛjtʲɛ.nˈant/ in a perfect Russian? I for one cannot spell most German ranks because I don't know German alphabet or spelling rules. Why in the world should I add Cyrillic spelling to Lieutenant, General, Admiral etc. or create Leytenant, Kapitan, Admiral (Russia) etc. to simply say that 'Admiral (spelled uhd-mee-RUHL) is Russian for Admiral' etc.? Why not translate 'Senior', 'Junior' or 'Sub' if for example 'Й' is named 'Short I', not 'I kratkoye'?

And you know what? I've removed transliterations/translations and I will revert the changes until there are transliterations, translations or spelling guide for German ranks, because "This is the encyclopaedia in English language" and not in German language. And sorry, providing the headings on the right side if the table could be appropriate for Arabic or Hebrew, not for English. DmitryKo 19:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The German Ranks can be spelled correctly as we are dealing with a language that uses the latin alphabet (double s letter and umlauts excepted). I think Russian ranks in Cyrillic alone is not much use. As a compromise here I have retained Cyrillic but also added transliterations. I will also add a note that there is no standard transliteration method. This is consistent with the German and Japanese ranks insofar that we do not go for full translation (eg Oberst to Colonel) but still render and idea of what the rank would be pronounced like in the given language. Having said that, it would be appropriate if the Kapitan 1-go ranga to Kapitan 2-go ranga could have the abbreviations replaced with a full latin version of the respective ordinal numbers as I and others have no idea how to say "1-go". Is that ok guys? Dainamo 21:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Use English" doesn't just mean "use English language", it also means "use English spelling for expressions in other languages" (like you spell English names in cyrillics in Russian). For languages which use the latin spelling natively, this is no problem, others must be transliterated. The fact that there is no standardized Russian transliteration doesn't stop us from having many articles about Russian people and places in Russia. We keep them at whichever transliterated version we decide is the most common and when listing them in general lists, i.e. not ones specificaly about Russia, we list them in latin spelling only. Doing otherwise consistently across Wikipedia for all languages would be both unsustainable and pointless. Zocky 02:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's not a spelling guide. You demand to transliterate a term that has a standard meaning in English, as opposite to geographical and personal names. This rank name would be useless to anyone who does not know Russian language (and if he knows it, he would learn Cyrillic right from the start so transliteration is useless again). Likewise, I see no point in learning whatever the transliterations of Japanese officer ranks are when it doesn't tell me a thing about their structure, meaning and evolution. In fact, literal translations like "Senior War Master" etc. with native spelling provided in Japanese military ranks would be more appropriate.

(And no, Russians do not transliterate foreign ranks since they borrowed many of them for the Regiments of the new order, even though Russian alphabet has much stronger rules for received pronunciation and most English phonemes besides R and TH are straightforward. You won't encounter эдмирал, кёрнал, мэйджор etc., with the exception of some naval ranks such as Commodore and, sometimes, Commander (коммо́дор, комма́ндер) that are not used by the Russian military.) DmitryKo 12:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In answer to: "Why the ranks are not hyperlinked anyway? DmitryKo": because it would bugger up the nice colour scheme Dainamo 18:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You could provide alternated links, something like Полковник _{transl. equiv.} Генерал-полковник_{transl. equiv.} etc. Some German naval ranks are already linked from Kriegsmarine, and Russian ones are listed in Russian military ranks. DmitryKo 12:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-corresponding rank names

I haven't studied this matter, but shouldn't we include some info about the fact that German and Soviet ranks above Oberst / 'colonel' is one-off in comparison with the names of the western nations' ranks? I presume the rank levels are correct (have no reason to suspect otherwise). --Wernher 03:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As is always the case with rank equivalents, it can be very difficult to make an exact comparison. The comparisons are generally based on level of responsibility (at the start of the war, at least, most German divisions were under generalleutnants, whereas Allied divisions were almost always under major generals throughout) and the fact that the Germans had the extra rank of generaloberst at the top instead of brigadier at the bottom. This is not an exact science, though - NATO ranking reckons British and American corporals and British lance corporals and American PFCs are equivalent in rank, whereas their actual responsibilities tell a very different story. -- Necrothesp 10:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There were a handful who held the rank of Generalfeldmarschall in WWII and there were two Grossadmiral (although the two were the leader and former leader of the Kriegsmarine so it was virtually a one man rank) I have no idea of the number of Chief Marshalls and Marshall of the Soviet Union there were. I suppose where we are sure such as Gereralissimo of the Soviet Union we should make it clear who held it. Dainamo 20:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there an elaborate system to decide who salutes whom first when 2 officers from different countries meet, i.e. who outranks whom? Do we know if a British major general outranked a Soviet generalmajor in ceremonial issues? Zocky 13:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On this point, the German maj general definately corresponded to a Briagdier-Gen (see also comments from Necrothesp above)General/Brigadier in the US/UK with a similar responsibility of command. The rank before Field Marshal was filled with the Rank of a Colonel-General. Although I am not sure of the Russian commande euqivalents, the fact that they also had a Colonel General (although in their case below a full genernal) and no briagdier-general, it seems logical that they were comparible to the German Ranks. However, as has been said, this is not an exact science and it remains open to any editors with further knowledge. Dainamo 17:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On an additional point, I like your alligments, alhtough I have removed the empty cells at the top of the US and UK ranks. Although their most senior Field Marshal or General of the Army etc. would not have been given a special rank like in Germany or the Soviet Union, it is not true to say they would have ranked below the Generalissimo or Reichsfuhrer. It is just a case of one country having more degrees over the same level of seniority than others. I have nevertheless retained your allignment of these ranks to German/Soviet ones. I am unhappy about Gen Sui in the japanese column as I'm now not sure it was actually used during WWII, but any further comments woud be good. Dainamo 17:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Russian Lieutenants and Japanese ranks

I have readded the distinction between just two ranks in the Japanese forces (Taisa and Taii are respectively Daisa and Daii in the navy). The only thing that is bugging me is the equivalence of Russian subaltern officers. From other (non Wiki) sources, a western second lieutenant is usually a fairly brief phase after gaining a commission, after which it would be a rarity not to be promoted. I would imagine this is the same as a Russian junior lieutenant and that the regular/senior grades are therefore both equivalent to a (first)lieutentant in the west and that the division would only be of consequence in the Russian military (or defined by role if ever a joint campaign were to take place with a western army). Your thoughts would be appreciated. Dainamo 09:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Are you sure that these Japanese ranks were really distinct and it's not a matter of different romanizations? I don't have a slightest clue, just wondering.)

The Junior Lietenant rank is pretty rare; it is given to senior NCO's promoted to comissioned officers, as well as some unlucky officer cadets whose academic achievements are considered mediocre. Typical officer cadet graduates right with Lieutenant rank and the best graduate as Senior Lieutenants. At peace time, a Junior Lieutenant is typically promoted to Lieutenant within a year. The promotion to Senior Lieutenant happens within two years of service and to Captain within another three to five years. Considering this, I believe Junior Lieutenant and Lieutenant are both equivalent to Second Lieutenant. I'm not aware about the promotion rules of Western armies though; maybe the organizational structure should also be considered. 10:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dai seems to have been preferredin the Navy. Some sources show only Tai-i becoming Dai-i and others have Tai-sa becoming Dai-sa but Tai-I remaining. This suggests that either 'Dai was correct or evolved as an alternative to Tai in the Navy. Eitherway, there was certainly a distict naval version. Perhaps this is similar to the British lef-tenant becoming l'tenant in the navy (traditionally)? I don't know. Dainamo 20:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Japansese ranks equivalent to colonel and naval captain are universally written in kanji as 大佐, and similarily army captain and naval lieutenant are written as 大尉, where 大 has a meaning of big or great and is spelled DAI in cantonese dialect. See [1] (http://with.k.kyoto-u.ac.jp/jun/others/jp-old.html) [2] (http://with.k.kyoto-u.ac.jp/jun/others/uk.html) [3] (http://with.k.kyoto-u.ac.jp/jun/others/us.html) DmitryKo 11:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)