Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gottlob Berger/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2016 [1].

Gottlob Berger

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gottlob Berger, one of Heinrich Himmler's key aides, who was responsible to a significant extent for the expansion of the Waffen-SS from a supposedly "racially pure" organisation to one which made a mockery of Hitler and Himmler's racial ideas by recruiting from almost all of the countries occupied by Nazi Germany during WWII. Berger was arrested and tried for war crimes after the war, but got off pretty lightly in the end, despite his responsibility for several significant crimes. He was also a close friend and ally of the notorious Oskar Dirlewanger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments This is a very good article about a horrible person, and a good snapshot of the crazed empire building which was a feature of many senior Nazi officials. I have the following comments:

  • "but his organisational skills were largely responsible for the growth of the Waffen-SS to a total of 38 divisions by war's end" - this is probably too strong given that the expansion of the SS was also due to Hitler's preference for it over the Army. Berger seems to have made the "best" of this opportunity.
    • Adjusted.
  • "briefly held in custody after Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923" - did he play any role in the Putsch, or was he arrested as part of a general round up?
    • the sources don't mention any part he played in the putsch, so I assume he was just rounded up with the rest of the Nazi's.
  • "Berger played a key role in directing the fifth column Sudetendeutsches Freikorps during the Sudeten Crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1938,[12] and the organisational skills he had displayed there marked him as highly suitable for the SS recruiting role" - this seems a bit out of place at the end of the para
    • moved it to the end of the subsection.
  • Was Berger's duties at the outbreak of war limited to recruiting members of the SS only, or was he also involved in overseeing recruit training?
    • In September 1939 he was only the head of the recruiting department, training was the responsibility of several other departments within the SS-HA.
  • " Waffen-SS,[20] a term he coined in an agreement dated 2 March 1940.[21] He used the new term..." - I'd suggest including a translation of the term here - noting that the name means "Fighting SS" would help to illustrate why it was seen to be attractive to the other branches of the SS
    • Done. "Armed SS" is probably the more common translation.
  • The final sentences of both paras in the "The "national legions"" section are a bit too similar. It also seems a bit narrow to attribute the German failure to expand these units to administrative issues: very few people in occupied countries were willing to volunteer for the German military.
    • Tweaked the first para a bit with some more material from Stein. The willingness of people from occupied territories to enlist varied across the board, for example, the pro-German nationalists among the Dutch were fairly keen, at least early on, but the Flemish less so.
  • How did Berger handle what look to be multiple full-time jobs during the war? Did he delegate the work to others, or leave it undone?
    • He had multiple department heads and a good-sized staff. I haven't seen any information indicating that he delegated any more than would have been usual for a man with multiple departmental heads, or that he failed to address any work he had. He was obviously an excellent administrator, which was probably why Himmler wouldn't give him a combat command.
      • OK, but it seems likely to me that corners would have been cut. Himmler also had lots of jobs, and didn't do most of them - the idea was to get his finger into as many pies as possible. This kind of double up and empire building was common for the senior Nazi bureaucrats, with historians noting that it messed up the processes of government, such as they were. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Berger assume command of XIII SS Army Corps?
  • More generally, it's not really clear what he did during 1945 prior to the German surrender at present - can this be fleshed out?
    • There isn't much to go on. He was obviously involved with the POW role (particularly with the Prominente), and had the kampfgruppe command as well, so they put him in the Alps. There can't have been too much going on with Waffen-SS recruiting at that stage...
  • "He was convicted under that part of count three relating to the murder of French Général de division Gustave Mesny, a POW who was killed in reprisal for the death of Generalleutnant Fritz von Brodowski at the hands of the French resistance in October 1944" - this isn't mentioned earlier in the article. What was his role here? Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments are now addressed. Great work with this article - having high quality articles on Nazi functionaries is an important element of building our coverage of Nazi Germany. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick. A pretty nasty lot, but I agree, we need to improve our coverage of them. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Assayer

[edit]

I am not sure, if a featured article of the English wikipedia has to be based on the relevant Non-English literature as well. Nonetheless, since the subject is German history, I will name a few studies. While there is no book-length biography of Berger, a couple of articles have been published in German by:

  • Alfred Hoffmann: Der "maßlose Drang, eine Rolle zu spielen": Gottlob Berger. In: Täter, Helfer, Trittbrettfahrer, ed. by Wolfgang Proske, Vol. 1, Reutlingen 2010, pp. 21-51.
  • Gerhard Rempl: Gottlob Berger. "Ein Schwabengeneral der Tat". In: Die SS. ed. by Ronald Smelser & Enrico Syring, Paderborn 2000. pp. 45-59.
  • Joachim Scholtyseck: Der „Schwabenherzog“. Gotthold Berger, SS-Obergruppenführer. In: Die Führer der Provinz. NS-Biographien aus Baden und Württemberg, ed. by Michael Kißener & Joachim Scholtyseck, Konstanz 1997, pp. 77-110.
  • Gerhard Rempel: Gottlob Berger and Waffen-SS Recruitment: 1933-1945. In: Militärgesch. Mitteilungen 27, (1980), pp. 107-122.

The article is largely based on books by Adrian Weale and George Stein, respectively. While Weale's book is apparently a synthesis of various studies studies published in English and suffers from the author's apparent inability to read German (review by Richard J. Evans), Stein's study was originally published in 1966 (1984 reprinted in pbk). It is by now considered to be outdated. Publications by Rupert Butler, Chris Bishop, Chris McNab, Jonathan Trigg are not high-quality. Kübler is national-socialist in outlook.

The standard work on the Waffen-SS is still Bernd Wegner's study of 1980, 9th ed. 2010, published in English as "The Waffen SS" in 1990. In recent years the interest in the Waffen-SS has reinvigorated. A representative collection of essays is Die Waffen-SS. Neue Forschungen. ed. by Jan Erik Schulte, Peter Lieb, Bernd Wegner, Schöningh, Paderborn 2014. Many of the contributing authors have also published monographic studies (mainly revised PhD. theses). On the recruitment process, see in particular René Rohrkamp, »Weltanschaulich gefestigte Kämpfer«: Die Soldaten der Waffen-SS 1933-1945. Paderborn 2010.

On the whole the article seems a little unbalanced. There is much information about the organization of the different units, but it is not always clear what Berger has to do with this. For example, the paragraph about the Baltic divisions doesn't even mention Berger or his and Himmler's promises of autonomy to Latvians and Estonians. His role in crushing the Slovakian uprising is passed over rather quickly. Neither do we learn much about Berger's ideology. As early as 1938 Himmler had proclaimed that he intended to recruit "non-German Germanics" for the SS, and in 1940 Berger dreamt to win over millions of men with German ancestry in the Americas and Australia at some point. Moreover, Berger reasoned that by transforming the SS into a full-scale army it could be established as a real alternative to the Wehrmacht. On this see Bernd Wegner: Auf dem Weg zur pangermanischen Armee. Dokumente zur Entstehungsgeschichte des III. ("germanischen") SS-Panzerkorps In: Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 28 (1980): pp. 101–136. More material on the soldierly role models of the SS can be found in Knut Stang: Ritter, Landsknecht, Legionär: Militärmythische Leitbilder in der Ideologie der SS. Frankfurt 2009; Berger's and Himmler's ideas of the Islam have found some attention in recent years, for example by David Motadel: Islam and Nazi Germany's War. Cambridge, MA, 2014. --Assayer (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm also not sure of the requirement for non-English sources on en WP, although there is no doubt that biographical articles on non-English-speaking people have made it to Featured status without a significant weight of foreign sources. I will see if I can get access to Wegner, thanks for that advice and the pointers to other sources. I would ask that you provide some evidence that Stein is outdated, particularly given that you have listed a 35-year-old book as being the standard work on the subject. For example, in my main area of specialisation, books from the 1960s and 70s remain standard texts on aspects of interwar and WWII Yugoslavia. Same goes for the reliability of the other sources. A negative review in an academic journal would be the sort of evidence I'd be looking for. Having said that, this isn't a dissertation, it is WP, so the issue is meeting the reliability requirements unless you consider an extraordinary claim has been made somewhere. Berger was the head of recruiting, not the organiser of the new divisions, so the history of the changes in recruitment is germane to his biography. Finally, thanks for the mention of the Slovakian uprising, I will take another look at that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with Stein's work is, that it reproduces the image of the Waffen-SS as an military "elite". Sönke Neitzel characterizes this (with reference to Stein and Höhne) as a myth which originated with the Nazi propaganda during the war. ("Des Forschens noch wert? Anmerkungen zur Operationsgeschichte der Waffen-SS," In: MGZS 61 (2002), p. 406, 415) According to Jens Westemeier recent research has shown that Stein's overall judgement, namely that the significance of the Waffen-SS is to be found "in its part in the great battles for the defense of Hitler's Europe", is grossly misleading. (Himmlers Krieger, 2014, p. 13.) Thomas Casagrande criticizes that Stein takes judgements by Eicke and other commanders about the military worth of the "Volksdeutschen" at face value. (Die volksdeutsche SS-Division "Prinz Eugen", 2003, pp. 305-6.) Wegner provided a social history of the Waffen-SS and in that respect his work is still unsurpassed. Later editions have been revised and improved. Considering that it is available in English I am surprised that it is not being used more often in the English Wikipedia.--Assayer (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is a fair analysis of Stein, despite the title of his book. He outlines what was essentially a two-tier system, the second of which he describes as far from "elite". He's also far from the only writer that identifies what was effectively a two or multi-tier arrangement within the 38 divisions of the Waffen-SS. He observes that what made the first tier "elite" was largely about the size and equipment of those formations, not necessarily the personnel or even training, although indoctrination obviously played a part. Other authors have observed better relationships between officers, NCOs and men in Waffen-SS formations when compared to comparable Army formations, for example. Comparable Army formations would also fit the "elite" description, largely for similar reasons. I have found that Wegner is held by my state library, so I will go and have a look and see what he says about Berger and his recruiting activities. In response to your comment I have added more about the Slovak uprising and some additional material about Berger from Kroener et al in various places. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to pop into the library and go through Wegner, as suggested. I have started adding material from it, though most of his mentions of Berger are in passing or in footnotes, and the material added consists of fairly minor tweaks here and there. Based on my reading, there isn't a large amount of material in Wegner that really adds to Berger's biography, or even to the chronology of Waffen-SS recruiting that I have tried to capture as a way of reflecting Berger's impact on it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added 15 new citations from Wegner covering some additional material regarding Berger's involvement in ideological indoctrination, rivalry with other SS leaders, his relationship with Himmler, the issues with Volksdeutsche and "Germanic" recruitment and a number of other bits and pieces throughout. There isn't much there about Berger himself, but I have tried to capture what little there was, as well as material regarding recruiting more generally. As already noted, I have also added material about the Slovak uprising. Further, despite your comments about Stein, I consider him reliable for the material he is used for in this article, his overall judgement of the Waffen-SS isn't being used here, merely the history of the recruiting process and related material. I believe the article has been improved by the addition of the material from Wegner, and believe it meets the Featured Article criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "Berger's SA career was limited by his soldierly ideas of politics and leadership". What soldierly ideas?
    • The source doesn't say. I assume that means they were very "black and white" and limited in vision?
  • "Berger had achieved the rank of Major der Reserve in the Wehrmacht by 1938, but his initial rank upon joining the Allgemeine SS was SS-Standartenführer, based upon his SA service." Presumably this means that he was then too junior to have suggested camouflage jackets, but this could do with spelling out.
    • No, full colonel equivalent was quite a high rank prior to the war, when the largest SS formation was a regiment (Standarte) commanded by a SS-Standartenführer. So there is no implication there. To avoid it, I've moved the rank bit down to the next para.
  • "Berger played a key role in directing the fifth column Sudetendeutsches Freikorps during the Sudeten Crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1938,[13] and the organisational skills he had displayed there marked him as highly suitable for the SS recruiting role." I would delete the word "had".
    • Done.
  • "creating separate sections to deal with recruiting inside and outside the Reich.[37] This latter section" Which latter section?
    • Clarified.
  • Operation Barbarossa - this should be linked.
    • It is already, piped to invasion of the Soviet Union
  • "Not content with this fairly minor and surreptitious recruiting effort, Berger proposed to raise a seventh Waffen-SS division from the ethnic Germans of Yugoslavia, something that had been a long-term plan of Berger's." The first and last clauses seem superfluous as you have said in the previous paragraph that Berger had proposed to recruit in Yugoslavia.
    • Removed the last clause, I think the first is still useful to connect the two ideas.
  • "Tyrolean General Levy Act" Why was a law of the County of Tyrol relevant to Yugoslavia?
    • A bloody good question, and the source doesn't explicitly say. I believe that once German sovereignty was established, the act could be used by way of a general application to any territory under German rule. I've added a clarifying phrase. Let me know what you think?
  • "when an SS judge issued an arrest warrant for Dirlewanger, the SS-HA chief intervened with Himmler saying, "Better to shoot two Poles too many than one too few. A savage country cannot be governed in a decent manner" Presumably Dirlawanger was charged with crimes against Poles, but it would be helpful to clarify.
    • the source says the unit was involved in anti-partisan operations, I've clarified it.
  • "In August 1942, Berger wrote a letter in which he railed against moves to promote SS ideology as a substitute for religion." This could do with expanding. Was he religious and were his rivals (who?) against religion?
    • I've not seen any material about Berger's religious views, but Wegner spends quite a bit of space exploring whether SS ideology was actually functionally equivalent to a religion. The SS itself was basically anti-Christian, but the basis of this was really anti-clerical rather than anti-belief. This is a quite complex issue and quite tangential to Berger himself, and on reflection, I've removed the sentence.
  • "he historian George C. Stein observes that few of the "national legion" recruits were motivated by "political or ideological idealism"" So what did motivate them?
    • The usual. I've added some of the factors Stein mentions.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By this time, the crisis in the "Germanic" project was obvious" This appears to mean by the end of the war, when presumably there were bigger problems than the crisis in the Germanic project.
    • No, in August 1943. I've clarified.
  • " In the German-occupied territory of Serbia, the General Government (annexed Poland)" It sounds odd to describe a government as a territory.
    • It is a bit weird, but that is what it was called. I've piped the link for clarity.
  • "only 3,000 members of the division escaped encirclement and destruction" Out of how many?
    • 14,000, added.
  • "In this role, Berger proposed a plan to kidnap and enslave 50,000 Eastern European children between the ages of 10 and 14, under the codename Heuaktion" You have already said this above.
    • Only in the lead. It is mentioned again in the War crimes trial section, but just by name.
  • His only meeting with Hitler mentioned in the article was when he claimed to have received a dressing down. Are other meetings known?
    • I haven't come across any. I assume that Himmler was the main go-between when he wanted authority to act on ideas.
  • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: absent a source review, but this looks to be good to go. Can I have dispensation for another nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. --Laser brain (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by K.e.coffman

[edit]
  • Lead could possibly be a bit streamlined (shortened).
    • The lead is within tolerances for WP:LEAD and properly summarises the article.
  • Lead states that Berger was the "father" of the Waffen-SS; in the body of the article this statement is cited to Adrian Weale. I cannot see what professional education he has, but he does not appear to be a professional historian. If this statement is kept, I'd prefer to see corroboration from other sources for this statement.
    • I fail to see why it needs to be corroborated, the context for it is explained.
  • Waffen-SS is italicized while the main article does not use italics; suggest removing italics as this would improve readability and would be consistent with the main article.
    • It is italicised in accordance with MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, so the main article should be italicised rather than the other way around.
  • Suggest removing non-highest awards from the infobox; it would shorten the infobox which is quite long
    • Sounds like a personal preference to me, this article is consistent with other Featured military biographies.
  • Structure: the article lists the events chronologically, which gets repetitive. This also results in a long table of contents with each subsection further subdivided into sections. Suggest possibly restructuring, or at least coming up with a summary header for each sub-section (i.e. 1941) to convey the key development/outcome for the year, and then using "TOC limit" to "hide" the sub-sub-sections.
    • It is a logical structure. Other reviewers seemed to be ok with it, so on balance I'll be retaining it as is.
  • I think it would help the readers if the article was shorter, as a key requirement for a featured article is: "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." Upon reading the article, I felt that certain areas could be streamlined, such as:

References

  1. ^ Weale 2010, p. 215.
Don't believe this passage is necessary, as it discusses Berger's claims and then states that the author this is being cited to doubts this account. Could easily be omitted.
I think it tells us something about him.

References

  1. ^ LBW 2015.
This could be streamlined, by omitting where Berger was a school inspector at, and omitting where he was a senior official. The section on early career could be streamlined, to allow reader to move into the content that covers Berger's Waffen-SS involvement. Similar:
Along the same lines: "...resisted by the Main Welfare Office for Ethnic Germans (German: Hauptamt Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle or VoMi) ..." -- German language translation is unneeded since interested readers can click on the link.

References

  1. ^ LEO-BW 2015.
This is unneeded, especially with the use of German words for common terms: Volksschule, Realschule. Wikipedia does not need to teach readers foreign languages. It would also be expected that Berger would have received some schooling before attending teacher training.
This is the same argument you are using elsewhere, but as I have pointed out elsewhere, the requirement is that the article be comprehensive, and providing where he went to school is just part of meeting that criteria. For goodness sake, it is information included in his entry in a dictionary of biography! The rest is personal preference.
  • Berger's evasion of Wehrmacht-imposed recruiting restrictions came to a head in June, when the Chief of the OKW Operations Staff, Generalmajor Alfred Jodl initiated an investigation of SS recruiting operations within the Reich. The result was that around 15,000 SS inductions were held up by various Wehrmacht military district headquarters. Berger became aware of Jodl's inquiry and advised Himmler that even their inquiries had underestimated his success, giving the example that the Wehrmacht believed he had exceeded the June quota for SS-Division-Totenkopf by 900 men, when in fact the true figure was 1,164. He boasted to Himmler that during the whole recruiting campaign, he had signed up 15,000 men for SS-Division-Totenkopf, when Hitler had only authorised the recruiting of 4,000 for the division in the same period. To justify his actions, Berger pointed to the fact that, just before the French surrender, Hitler had ordered the release of over-age SS reservists. In the SS-Division-Totenkopf, this meant 13,246 of the 20,000-strong formation.[1]

References

  1. ^ Stein 1984, pp. 95–96.
Similarly, the above passage could be streamlined as I was getting lost in all of the numbers, down to single digits.
No-one else appears to have a problem with it.
Copyediting to remove similar detail would result in a more readable text as the reader would be confronted with fewer numbers, bluer link and / or foreign language terms.
This is just your usual carping about what you call "intricate detail". I call it being comprehensive.
  • This may be a personal preference & outside of the scope of this review, but I'm more accustomed (from English-language literature) to SS Division Totenkopf, SS Division Das Reich, etc. vs SS-Division Totenkopf and SS-Division Nord. (There's also inconsistency as "SS-Division Totenkopf" is also rendered as "SS-Division-Totenkopf").
  • It is personal preference. I have fixed the inconsistency.
The less Germanisation of unit names, the easier it would be for the reader (IMO). Also, as a matter of personal preference, I find it easier on the eyes to avoid italicising German ranks: see sample link or as used in the English translation of Germany and the Second World War: link.
That is your personal view, but it is not supported by MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
For example, compare 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) with the name as it appears in Jozo Tomasevich: 13th SS Division "Handschar".
See above.
  • Section "Re-organisation" appears to be too detailed and not following summary style.
    • I reject that. It is comprehensive.
  • There are some instances of overcite, such as:
  • Wounded four times,[1] he was awarded the Iron Cross First Class,[2] and was considered 70 per cent disabled at the time of his discharge.[1]
  • That isn't overciting, it is close citation, so the reader knows where the information comes from.

References

  1. ^ a b Weale 2010, p. 118.
  2. ^ Weale 2012, pp. 246–247.
  • Providing an exhaustive list of decorations, including minor, appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Suggest trimming the list & having minor decorations go, such as:
There are probably more that could go.
That is a personal preference of yours demonstrated in your deletion of awards from infoboxes and articles elsewhere. I don't propose to change it, it is comprehensive, which is one of the Featured criteria.
  • Re: "While it achieved successes and proved itself competent in counter-insurgency operations against the Partisans in eastern Bosnia,[1] the division earned a reputation for brutality and savagery, not only during combat operations,[2]" -- I would prefer this to be cited in its entirety to Tomasevich. I.e. does he say that the division "achieved success"?
  • Why would you "prefer" it to be cited to Tomasevich? Tomasevich doesn't provide that information.

References

  1. ^ Bishop 2007, pp. 137–138.
  2. ^ Tomasevich 2001, p. 499.
  • In a similar fashion, Tomasvich would be preferable here, as more authoritative than Weal and more current than Stein:
  • While Weale states that they were mainly motivated by anti-communism,[1] the historian George C. Stein observes that few of the "national legion" recruits were motivated by "political or ideological idealism", but were instead motivated by such factors as a desire for adventure, better food, the prestige of the uniform, and personal circumstances. According to Stein, Berger had no illusions about the motives of his West European recruits, but paid mere lip service to the idea that they joined the "anti-communist" cause out of idealism.[2]
  • This is frankly ridiculous. Stein and Weale make these statements, Tomasevich does not. He was an authority on Yugoslavia in WWII, and didn't write on the Waffen-SS except as it impacted on Yugoslavia. This comment is way off base.

References

  1. ^ Weale 2010, p. 303.
  2. ^ Stein 1984, p. 141.
  • Speaking of which, the article contains 35 citations to Weal & 50 to Stein. I would prefer to see other sources used more, such as aforementioned Tomasvich and Germany and the Second World War.
    • They are where the information resides. I've explained Tomasevich above.

Overall, I feel it's a solid article that could be further improved by following summary style and making the copy more readable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for having a look, but given we are at odds over a number issues regarding your personal preferences and odd ideas, it will not surprise you that I take a review by you with a generous helping of salt.

@FAC coordinators: User:K.e.coffmann and I have been at odds for some time over his editing approach, so I don't believe his review here is entirely in good faith. In my view it is more a way to promote his various agendas regarding sources, style and content on articles about the Waffen-SS. I believe that should be taken into account when closing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, to be on the safe side I should probably recuse from this as I've been involved in the discussions PM alludes to, through my MilHist connection. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a close look today or tomorrow. Thanks for the heads-up! --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gottlob_Berger/archive1&oldid=1251715388"