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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
The reviewer was obviously not very familiar with Nazi hierarchy. When the Sicherheitsdienst and/or the Gestapo wanted to do something, a "mere" Generalleutnant, if he had the guts, might be able to lodge a complaint with the ranking SD officer and then pray to God he wasn't later sent to the Eastern Front. The SD might accept his "advice" but they might also simply ignore him or even make him depart the area. You have to remember that both the SD and the Gestapo were above the law and above the need to obey orders from a Wehrmacht general. This section seems rather out of place. --Traumatic (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You are of course right, but it was even worse for Kittel was not even a general at the time of that murderous shooting. Also, according to his saying, in the original oficial report, he DID PROTEST.
Next critique on the main text; The reference or source (2) is a website from indeed 2 so-called "reviewers", interpreting dastardly the original report. The main text to a large extent just repeats that interpretation. It would be more honest to cite the exact and true wordings recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:9C15:1200:D5E6:1D8D:7BCE:FFD4 (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
