Talk:Luftwaffe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

old comments

Perhaps instead of "This chain extended from North-Norway all the way through Europe along the Iron Curtain ending in East-Turkey." it would be more accurate to state :

" This chain extended from northern Norway all the way through Europe, along the Iron Curtain into Asia, ending in eastern Turkey."

The original version might be mis-read to imply that eastern Turkey is in Europe.


Deutsche Luftwaffe

I just checked the Luftwaffe's site, Deutsche Luftwaffe is never used as a title, "deutsche" (note small cap) rarely as a description (Google: "Results 1 - 10 of about 45 from bundeswehr.de for "deutsche luftwaffe"."). I'm a native speaker, and I never heard it called "Deutsche" before. So if this is some official title mentioned in some papers hidden in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard', it better should be sourced and mentioned as obscure. --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Image: File:Zniszczenia1939 0.jpg

Looking at this picture, I think although it might be an accurate representation of real bombings, is in fact a diarama model.

I make this posit on the basis of the lighting and the lack of people in the image. Plus:

1. The flash is too clear (the area is large but not inclusive as there are dark areas that are not consistent with shadow). 2. There is no graining (film quality is revealed in low-light conditions). 3. It appears that electical lighting is illuminating the houses in the background. 4. To garner this image (if it were real) would result in a long exposure on a steady platform. Because as the background is in focus, it would suggest a small aperture, which would then require extremely (ridiculously) fast film (for a night shot).

My overall point is that as this, to me, is an image of a model it should be noted as such. Leaving unoted makes it a very, very cleaver fake. But a fake, it is.

Besides I am sure there are many better examples of the Luftwaffe bombing such as Coventry or Battle of the Mediterranean.

Soviet aircraft in German airforce

The last Soviet MiGs were retired in II/2004.

That is correct. All 23 surviving MiG-29s have been sold (at the symbolic price of € 1) to Poland where they now serve in the Polish Airforce. The fighter wing "Steinhoff" in Laage has since switched to Eurofighter Typhoons.


Wrong, 29+13 still remains at airbase Laage as an exhibition feature. One MiG29 was lost (29+06) makes 22 MiGs (4 trainer 18 single seater) that were sold to Poland, not 23 !

Wow... way to burn him over 1 whole plane. I bet you just shit cool... (Bobbo9000 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 02:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why would Germany, who keeps attempting to distance himself from her actions during World War II, would keep the same name for her airforce? Is their version of the boyscouts still called Hitler Youth?

Because "Luftwaffe" ("air weapon") is no special name for the German Airforce. It simply IS the german word for "airforce"! (well, the exact translation would be "Luftmacht", like the Royal Netherlands Airforce "Luchtmacht", but that would sound strange in german)

Because that's what it is called. The army is the Heer and has always been the Heer. The Navy is the Marine and has always been the Marine. So there is no need to change that. The Armed forces as such are called Bundeswehr like in Reichswehr and not Wehrmacht. That is enough distance 82.83.24.192

As this is the English Wikipedia, shouldn't the name of the article be German Air Force? Surely we cannot have articles using the "indigenous" names for institutions as that would lead to mass confusion ... Elf-friend 07:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good lord, no. Even plebes know who the Luftwaffe is. -Joseph (Talk) 14:54, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
Indeed no. This article should stay at Luftwaffe. Note that a redirect German Air Force exists. And most certainly it shouldn't be at Luftwaffe (German military aviation)! Lupo 14:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you guys please stop it? It's obvious that if you don't know how redirects work, perhaps you shouldn't be moving pages around. In addition, I continue to vehemently oppose any name for this article other than "Luftwaffe." It is the most common name, is instantly associable, and is unambiguous. This is a polite request to cease and desist. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:09, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

OK, point taken! Luftwaffe it is! Christopher Crossley 01:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talking of "polite requests to cease and desist", here is mine: please cease and desist from making unhelpful comments within the body of the article itself about what organisation(s) the term "Luftwaffe" has been applied to. Maybe Lufthansa HAS laughingly been referred to as the "Luftwaffe" (by whom, exactly?) and I don't mind a good joke, but please write them HERE and not in the article - OK? LOL Christopher Crossley 16:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talking of Luftwaffe usage, shouldn't the WW1 page(s) correctly use Luftstreitkräfte? Or am I nitpicking? Trekphiler 22:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Topics of this article

IMO the article should concentrate more on the Luftwaffe of today and not SO MUCH on the history of the Luftwaffe. Some things of the Luftwaffe's history should be moved to "History of the Luftwaffe", because it's more important what the Luftwaffe today is than what good ol' Luftwaffe was in WWI/II. Deutschger

I've heard that the Luftwaffe even had some naval vessels. Can anybody confirm this?

No, but the German navy has some aircraft - 217.237.149.163 15:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In WWII, the Luftwaffe had its own ships for weather observation. Christian Rödel

The GDR Air Force has never flown the Soviet Sukhoi Su-7 jet fighter. It had only some Su-22 Jet Bommber, beginning in 1984.

Other Luftwaffes

I didn't realize this, but there are other German-speaking countries that have an air force called the luftwaffe (e.g. Swiss Air Force). Shouldn't some mention of this be made in the intro? -Lommer | talk 05:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. As stated in the above section "Question", Luftwaffe is just the generic term for air force in German. You could easily and correctly reference the US air force in German as the amerikanische Luftwaffe, although this is rarely done (instead die Airforce is more often used). In Switzerland the air force is indeed called the Schweizer Luftwaffe, whereas in Austria the air force is called Österreichische Luftstreitkräfte. And Liechtenstein doesn't have an air force, as far as I know :-) ... MikeZ 07:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction

The article said this:

"However, the fact that the English Channel was between occupied France and Norway (since Luftflotte (Air Fleet) V under Generaloberst Hugo Sperrle operated from Norway) did as much to save the UK from invasion as the unexpectedly fierce resistance from the squadrons consisting of pilots of many nationalities, not just British.
"Ultimately, the inability of the Luftwaffe to control the skies in what became world famous as the Battle of Britain (so-called after Winston Churchill made a radio broadcast announcing the end of the campaign in France) formed a key point in the war. Ostensibly, Hitler's decision to shift the focus of operations to bombing industrial targets in cities instead of British airfields was a tactical mistake. German air power, which suffered increasingly from a shortage of aviation fuels, raw materials (especially aluminium) for the construction of aircraft and frequently flawed leadership by Göring (who managed to deflect blame onto others like Udet), diminished further with the entry of the United States into the conflict in December 1941.
"Unlike the Germans, the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF), under the command of General Henry H. Arnold, developed a strategic bomber force. The USAAF bombers , along with fighters such as the P-51 when fitted with drop tanks, were capable of very deep penetration into Reich territory and maintained daylight bombing of industrial targets, while their RAF colleagues continued with the offensive by conducting night operations."

The loc of the Channel had damn all to do with Ger defeat in the Battle. "Ostensibly"? The shift saved FC, & HCTD knew it; 2 more wks, FC'd be finished. Between Göring, Hitler, & incompetent intel, it's a wonder the Battle lasted as long as it did. And the Ger shortages? RAF BC was so incapable of hitting precision targs, crippling Ger elec pow ind was impossible until 1944, when the 1941 tonnage could've done the job, if applied correctly. Instead, Harris, Portal, & Churchill, & Spaatz, Eaker, Marshall, & FDR (yes, they all take a share of blame) threw 50000 Empire & about 50000 American aircrewmen at German cities, for nothing. Castigate Haig for Verdun? Castigate them; it was no different. LR escort Fs should have been in service in 1939, & intel from China, or Britain, should have made the need crystal clear; USAAC wrecked the P-38 prototype on a stupid publicity stunt flight & set the program back 2yr, denying Br & US her benefits. Attacking cities was stupid; there was slim chance of "breaking morale". Bombers lacked the precision to hit factories, & prewar trials should have developed techniques & technologies to make it possible; faulty USAAF training in near-perfect conditions led to fantastical expectations of accuracy over Germany. Bomber Command's faith in their navigators was no less fantastical, & its falsity should also have been revealed prewar. So? B-26s or Mossies with guided bombs in 1940, able to hit powerstations & bring Ger war production to a halt? Why not? Trekphiler 20:26 & 21:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

why not guided bombs in 1940? umm...maybe because the technology used in guided bombs hadn't been created yet? or it was so rudimentary that it wouldn't have been usable, i.e., room sized computers don't so well fit inside a 500lb bomb. 69.133.157.123 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're at least two wars behind. Azon, Razon, Felix, Fritz-X & others were all guided bombs. They weren't "smart" bombs, which is what you're thinking (tho Felix might qualify; it was an IR homer, & radar-homing weapons were developed), but remotely controlled. The first guided bomb was used against Roma in 1943, by the Germans; IIRC, she was sunk. And U.S. guided bombs were used successfully against bridges in CBI in 1944-5. I repeat, why not? Trekphiler 12:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

75.165.64.244 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Hello. I dont recall seeing anything stating that the British bombed German cities first. The Luftwaffe first bombed only military targets untill then. they switched to a city bombing campaign only in retaliation to British attacks.

Credit due

Can someone confirm Bär's score as a jet ace, & include it here? I've seen 16, but I'm uncertain (& maybe confused with McConnell). Trekphiler 22:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

His 16 aerial victories acquired while he flew the Me 262A place him as the 2nd ranking jet ace of WWII (behind only the legendary Kurt Welter). Detmold 19:35 24th April 2006

Thanks so much. (Boy, am I up to date, huh? ;D)) Trekphiler 12:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Luftwaffe Luftflotten and your diverse locations 1939-45

hi -- can someone take a look at this article and at least come up with a new name for it? As I said on its talk page, with no response, it appears to have come through a computer translation. My locations in 1939-45 are not in question. I'm not sure how best to translate "luftflotten"; perhaps Luftwaffe wing positions during World War II would be more appropriate? thanks. bikeable (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The literal translation for "Luftflotte / Luftflotten" is "Air Fleet / Fleets" the Allied equivalent in WWII was "Air Force" (like in 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force or 8th US Air Force). However, an article about Luftflotten locations doesn't seem to make a lot of sense; the information about Organization of the Luftwaffe in WWII should either be integrated into "History of the Luftwaffe", or you undertake the work of tracking each and every individual wing and squadron ("Geschwader" and "Staffel", btw), which seems a little bit over the top for Wikipedia purposes.

I have moved this article to German Air Fleets in World War II and intend to convert it to the table scheme, allowing a lot more information to be presented, in an effort to make it more useful. Andreas 08:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Guernica, 1939-1940

Why so much about Guernica and so few about 1939-1940? There happened something before the BoB. Xx236 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Language and Imperial Air Force

I am (as a native German speaker) somewhat unhappy with the "literal" translation of German terms, as they seem to sound rather clumsy in English, and do ignore existing closely related English equivalents. "Luftwaffe", imho, should be translated as "Air Arm" (as in Fleet Air Arm), while "Streitkräfte" is the equivalent of "Armed Forces" in every context. So "Luftstreitkräfte" ar the armed forces of the air. The artificial constructs "air weapon" and "air fighting forces" don't make too much sense.

This leads to a second point. As far as I know, an organisation called "Kaiserliche Luftstreitkräfte" did not exist. Like in most countries, the first air units were integrated into the existing organizations of Army and Navy. The squadrons that were part of the Army were referred to as "Fliegertruppe" ("Flyers' Corps", if you must, akin to RFC). Manfred von Richthofen, e.g., started the war as Cavalry officer and retained his rank of "Rittmeister" (cavalry captain) after being transferred to a newly formed warplane squadron. chlange001 20:12 CET, 12/01/06

Found some more: "Kampfgruppe" should perhaps be "Combat Group" as "Kampf" means "fight" or "combat", and "Fighter" designates an entirely different concept in English, "Hunt / hunter" sounds very awkward for "Jagd / Jäger" in this context - the contemporary English/American equivalent was "Pursuit", as "P" in P-51. The Air Force of the GDR was not simply named "Luftstreitkräfte", but "Luftstreitkräfte / Luftverteidigung der NVA".

Thanks, this is good information. Since you brought up the topic I will add my opinion that it really is helpful and appropriate to translate (idiomatically) terms such as those you mention. Doing so adds information about the culture and thought processes of the people who used those words. For one small example, both French and Germans (and probably others) had ground and air units called chasseurs or jaeger. This little bit of local color is partly lost if one leaves the terms untranslated, and entirely lost if they are simply replaced with their anglo-american counterparts (in this case rangers or special forces.) Stacy McMahon 18:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Split WWII section

I split the World War II section into History of the Luftwaffe during World War II, since it was big enough to warrent an article of its own.--KrossTalk 21:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but even my limited knowledge is enough to know that the section "Luftwaffe in WWII" is incredibly POV towards a particular interpretation of the Battle of Britain and even more of the bombing campaign against Germany. Phrases such as "faulty strategy" and even more "futile" and comparing Arthur Harris and the senior commanders of Bomber Command to General Hague in 1916 are extreme expression of a particular POV on this issue. I'm aware that some reputable historians and air warfare experts hold these views, but so equally others disagree. This section should either confine itself to a simple summary of the history (what actually happened, with a minimum of analysis and interpretation) or give both sides of the debate. I am not an expert in this period, so i will not attempt it myself- but it needs doing! Ian, 02.25.06

Yes, this section is amongst the most unbelievably POV pieces of writing I have seen on wiki for a long time. It needs deleting completely and starting again from scratch. Whoever wrote it clearly has no understanding whatsover of what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be. If this is indicative of the article at the time of nomination, then I am in no way surprised that the FAC failed. Appalling. Badgerpatrol 15:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Added neutrality and verifiability tags. Material must be a) balanced; b) directly referenced. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a soapbox. Badgerpatrol 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a continuation of the fashionable trend of slapping {{npov}} on articles where a single editor or a small group of editors disagrees with the content. Let's retain some perspective here and not use that tag on the whole article, since some of you are calling into question a single section. I think this tagging should have been more thoroughly vetted in the first place. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Forklifted from User talk:N328KF, since it really belongs here:
I noticed your comments on the Luftwaffe talk page- are you suggesting that the tag was not merited at all (I think this tagging should have been more thoroughly vetted in the first place.), or merely that the tag was not merited for the entire article? If the latter, you are right- the reason I placed a tag at the top was because a) the outrageous POV in the WWII section potentially compromises the whole page (it is, I suspect, far and away the key part of the story in most people's estimations); b) to ensure that it is noticed on the day the article was linked from the main page. I considered placing the tag at the section in question myself, and I expected someone to move it quickly anyway- but if you are seriously suggesting (your comment is somewhat ambiguous) that you can't see POV in the WWII section then I am absolutely flabbergasted. Anyway, I have no objection to moving the tags. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 00:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that the tag was not merited. I am suggesting that I don't believe that most of the article is biased, and yet the entire article was tagged as such. Also, people have been npov-tag-happy as of late. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the NPOV tag on the WWII section is entirely justified! The rest of the article seems (to my limited knowledge) ok, but this section seriously needs balance or simplification! As i said, I don't feel qualified to do so myself, but if there is no alteration soon i will have a go, as leaving as it is should not, IMHO, be an option. Ian, 03.02.06

I removed the POV from the WW II section, after replacing the IMO unacceptable info there with the intro I have written for the split Luftwaffe in WW II page. I have also completely rewritten the split page, added sources, and hopefully neutralised it to a degree to become acceptable. Comments welcome. Andreas 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Luftwaffe in WWII" article is very good! Thankyou. Personally, I feel you should maybe have slightly more info on this period in the main article- but i don't know what wikipedia policy on this kind of thing- duplication etc- is. Thanks for your work- this article is much better now. Ian, 03.12.06

Thanks for the compliments, it was a lot of work, but I learned a lot myself while doing it. Personally I would rather like to see less duplication, since it makes it tricky to keep things up to date on pages where the duplicated info is. But as you I am not sure what Wiki policy is. Andreas 13:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the Lufttransportgeschwader

Hello.

Do you know, what Lufttransportgeschwader is?

And i haven't seen anything about the eurofighter, the Tiger(UHU) or the NH-90.

LTG = Air transport wing --Denniss 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Luftwaffentransportgeschwader translates to: (German) Air Force Transport Squadron, thus its meaning should be clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.179.50.50 (talk • contribs) 10:13 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no Luftwaffentransportgeschwader only Lufttransportgeschwader and this translates to air transport wing, as Dennis already said. Squadron in German is Staffel.
The Tiger (UH Tiger or UHT, from Unterstützungshubschrauber TIGER, support helicopter Tiger) is an attack helicopter of the army and therefore it is correct not to mention it in the Luftwaffe article. The NH90 is mainly for the army but will also be flown in a still-to-be-created Hubschraubertransportgeschwader. So indeed NH90 is missing here, if you want to show future aircraft at all. --Wschroedter (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

About the Deutsche Luftwaffe

Why does the German Luftwaffe have "Dutch" in it?

Deutsche = German, not Dutch --Denniss 12:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Two Bundeswehr templates

There are two Bundeswehr templates, the one at the intro and one at the foot of the page. I'm not sure which, but I think one of the templates should go. Mark83 00:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the slim one, which now was on top, too. De728631 15:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism

First problem in this article: "The Luftwaffe were responsible for many 'accidental' bombings in Ireland... etc. etc. ..in the USA before they were spoke about in Ireland."

Important for the people of Ireland at the time but does it warrant five lines in a synopsis of the Luftwaffe in WW2? It doesnt even appear in the main article!!

Alongside that point, and demonstrating a major failing of the main article, there is no mention of the words "National Socialist", "Nazi", or "political"!! lol!! No mention of Hitler Youth gliding schools, Sehleisheim school, or Nazi Flying Corps. Not a word on the ideological training. An oversight? Yet how can it be when these are well known aspects of the Luftwaffe? Even from 1935 Generalleutnant Walther Wever, first head of later Luftwaffe General Staff: "Officer Corps will be National Socialist or it won’t be at all" Are basic (BOOK based) histories on the subject being read or is it a cut and paste from around the wiki and eulogizing websites?

As they both stand now, this article and its main represent a snowjob/whitewash and dont detail basic facts. Maybe there is a reason why these two articles avoid examining the Luftwaffe as the only branch of the armed services that could be described as "National Socialist" in total confidence? Dee Mac Con Uladh 12:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you add what's missing, then? Tschild 15:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the wikipedia way. I was trying to indicate that the article does not need additions, it needs rewritten. Rewritten by someone who has an indepth knowledge of the origins and operation of the organization, not someone who has read a few of the 1950s-1970s "I was there" memoirs or their spinoffs. I placed a frame from a Luftwaffe training document in the WW2 article to illustrate what im talking about. The Luftwaffe were not Udet like "Knights of the Sky" they were committed nazis. I dont have time to rewrite the article and defend it against being rewritten. Examining books on the subject is what I can suggest. Dee Mac Con Uladh 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole WWII section needs scrapping. Case in point: "The leaders of the Luftwaffe was Hermann Goering. He was an obese man and did not really care about the Luftwaffe. He rarely attended important meetings to go to fancy parties." This is 3rd grade writing and does not belong in an encyclopedia. The mix of topics is also amateurish, combining concepts like Blitzkrieg, engine design and the death of three girls in Ireland (in a war that claimed millions of lives) within one paragraph. It would be better to just have a WWII stub or nothing at all than that.

Sheesh. What's next, "See Dick fly"? This is written like a gradeschool essay. I deleted
"The Luftwaffe were responsible for many 'accidental' bombings in Ireland one of which occurred on 26th of August 1940, this took place in Campile co Wexford. A total of 5 bombs were dropped and the blasts killed 3 local girls who worked in the creamery which was bombed. The bombing was covered up by the government for 4 hours until details were released. Details of the blast were actually broadcast in the USA before they were spoken about in Ireland."
It may be true, but isn't on point. I also deleted
"Opposite Goering was Erhart Milch. He was the former director of Lufthansa (German Airline Company) He would spend sleepless nights pouring over aircraft designs and war tactics. Both men would participate in endless fighting to gain Hitler's support."

as achingly juvenile. If somebody wants to put in something substantive about Milch... (I'm going to look for my copy of Bekker.) Trekphiler 09:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A future war

"there existed the need to train its pilots for a future war in secret" ...so, the evil germans were already planing WWII in the early 20's? ¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.202.180 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

military units are (should) always prepared for war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.252.161 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft flown

"Transport: A400M" - quite euphemistic, never flown yet. --89.53.9.147 (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Luftwaffe as a generic Term

The article said:

In German usage Luftwaffe is also a generic term, so die britische Luftwaffe means "the British Air Force."

I think this is very obscure, and Google agrees: Results 1 - 10 of about 5,240 German pages for "britische Luftwaffe". vs. Results 1 - 10 of about 164,000 German pages for "Royal air force". (My emphasis)

Note that other contries' results might be less compelling, but it should still be clear that Germans tend to use the native names for foreign air forces. --87.189.110.108 (talk)

No, that's a correct statement. Luftwaffe is both a specific term for the air arm of the Bundeswehr but also a generic term for any other air force. --Denniss (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't.
(You probably missed the fact that you just repeated the statement which I showed to be wrong. Feel free to open a conversation any time.) --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Now this is fun.

  • The article claim fact A.
  • I am familar with the subject matter and claim otherwise
  • Google supports my claim (30:1, guys!)
  • I am reverted, the reason given is: "A is fact"
  • I rerevert pointing out that the revert is against policy.
  • I'm reverted again, this time without any reason given.

Hm, what to do next? --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Try signing you own posts the first time for starters, so I don't keep getting an edit conflict from you and Sinebot. Per the Be bold-Revert-Discuss guideline, you should have not reverted the first time. That is why I reverted you without comment for being disruptive. There is no right version of a page in a content dispute, which this is. If another editor reverts you, leave it alone this time. Otherwise, you'll be close to violating WP:3RR, which I know you're familar with since you left a warning on User talk:Denniss's talk page. Btw, User:Denniss is German, so I imagine his view on this issue is as good as your's or Google's. Some of my blood is German, but it didn't include a genetic knowledge of the language, so I'm not commonting on the issue itself, just your mishandling of it. - BillCJ (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Try getting your comments done the first time for starters, so I don't keep getting an edit conflict from you.
Thanks for the reply!
I might have left it unreverted if Denniss has given any reason why he disagrees with me. Repeating the very fact I dispute is worthless. So this was not a discussion, just a quick shot to get rid of an IP. Take me seriously and AGF.
Deniss is one single German, Google has 30:1. Where do you think this comes from if it is as common as the article claimed? --87.189.110.108 (talk)
Denniss is a respected editor who has earned his respect - you are an unknown IP who is apparently using his anonimity to be disruptive. I'm sure Denniss will respond to you objections in time, if he so chooses. But in the meantime, I respectfully suggest that you revert yourself, not that I expect you to. You only seem to respect yourself, in spite of what you claim. Reverting anyone simply because they reverted an IP is NOT respecting WP's policies. And Denniss did give you an explanation - he affirmed his belief in the original quote. You may not like his answer, but it WAS an answer, so please stop pretending otherwise. - BillCJ (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me introduce my reply with a note about yourself. You stated that you have no intention to give respect for anything I do; I don't think you are should participate in this discussion as long as you are in open violation of AGF.
Also, please stop the personal attacks. Step back and calm down a little.
I reverted Denniss because his revert broke Wikipedia policy, as pointed out elsewhere. You pointed out another, conflicting policy (good, I hear people die all the time for lack of policy), but that's no reason not to AGF if I revert a policy-breaking edit.
Denniss indeed entered some text; as pointed out before, he was not disussing anything, nor did he gave a reason for anything. He just repeated the wrong statement that I removed. How on earth could this possibly resolve anything?
I am a native german speaker and I know what I'm speaking about. As I said Luftwaffe means Air Force, nothing more. It may be used for any air force of the world (like spanische Luftwaffe = spanish air force) or for the specific branch of the Bundeswehr. Do not base you assumption on a google search as those results may be highly misleading. --Denniss (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a native speaker, too. This is however irrelevant. I didn't just claim that the stated fact would be wrong, I delieverd evidence.
As I demonstrated, the use claimed in the article (in the intro no less) is obscure at best. I don't remember that I ever heard the expression "Britische Luftwaffe", so I checked with Google, which backs up my thought. What's your evidence?

I think the problem here is the example that was given. The Royal Air Force is very famous and is well-known by that name, even in other languages. However, perhaps if our example were something like the Iraqi Air Force... "Irakischen Luftwaffe" is way more common on German pages than "Al Quwwat al Jawwiya al Iraqiya" is. TomTheHand (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"I think the problem here is the example that was given."
Maybe, I pointed out that possibility right from the start. I wouldn't mind to add a neutral statement to that effect somewhere in the article. However, I got reverted and now I'm somehow disruptive.

Here is what happened:

  • I changed the article, giving evidence for my version.
  • Nobody mentioned a shred of a hint of a puff of evidence why my version was bad.

Now I get attacked. Please explain why. Please abstain from personal attacks if you can't prove them. --87.189.110.108 (talk)

To the other editors here: I apologize for rising to the IP's bait. He seem's to be misunderstanding everything I say. Whether or not this is intentional on his part, I see no reason to continue with this line. I can't add to the actual content under discussion here, so I bow out. - BillCJ (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So if an IP changes an article (giving evidence), he is a troll? --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Luftwaffe as a generic Term, 2nd attempt

The article says:

In German usage Luftwaffe is also a generic term, so die britische Luftwaffe means "the British Air Force."

I think this is very obscure, and Google agrees: Results 1 - 10 of about 5,240 German pages for "britische Luftwaffe". vs. Results 1 - 10 of about 164,000 German pages for "Royal air force". (My emphasis)

Note that other contries' results might be less compelling, but it should still be clear that Germans tend to use the native names for foreign air forces. Please provide a more neutral alternative if you think the sample is biased. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Please provide reasons why this statement should stay in the article. (NOTE: Repetition of the statement in question is not a reason.) --87.189.110.108 (talk)

Being a native German speaker, I would like to confirm the above statement that the word Luftwaffe is indeed used as a generic term. Google hit counting is never a good argument, as the sheer quantity of a statement, either correct or incorrect, is not equivalent to the quality or correctness of the same statement. A much better argument is the definition of the Duden: Luft|waf|fe, die: für den Luftkrieg bestimmter Teil der Streitkräfte eines Staates, Landes. - That's pretty clear, don't you agree? I really do hope that this point is now settled. - Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. While a Google hit counter is not the ultimate argument, it should not be dismissed outright, and it was all we had a moment ago. In this case, Google shows a compelling 30:1 relation, which would be foolish to ignore.
As argues elsewhere, I don't think that a translation is necessary here as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it should certainly not be given in the intro. Please make a suggestion without the (still, sorry) obviously wrong example favored by Dennis and BillCJ‎, and at a better place.
The native speaker thing is neither here nor there by the way, I'm also one, and I certainly don't ever call the RAF Britische Luftwaffe. Do you? --87.189.110.108 (talk)
Well, yes, I would actually prefer to say britische Luftwaffe instead of britische Air-Force in German. In my personal opinion this would be using a "better" German compared the mix of German and English terms in the later variant. Using the name Royal Air Force is definitely better than britische Air-Force, but that is not the point. You are mixing the arguments whether to use the name RAF or the description britische Luftwaffe. If we would discuss this same topic with the example of a non-English air force, this would get clearer: Would you ever say Die Türk Hava Kuvvetleri flog Angriffe auf kurdische Stellungen?
But, let's briefly come back to the Google hit count argument you did like to reopen. If you would search for amerikanische Luftwaffe instead of britische Luftwaffe Google would give you ...
194.000 Seiten auf Deutsch für amerikanische Luftwaffe, versus
120.000 Seiten auf Deutsch für amerikanische Air-Force (and this result includes the various spelling variants like Air Force, airforce, Air-Force,...)
In fact, quite the opposite result to your own quantitative justification. - This just underlines the point of my earlier post that Google counting is completely irrelevant, no matter how "compelling" a certain ratio seems to be. (MikeZ (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Part 1)
"Amerikanische Airforce"? Why didn't you just search for "Amerikanische Luftforce"? It must have been clear from the start that mixed-language expression are more rare than either originals or plain translation, so this doesn't prove anything. --87.189.90.31 (talk)
But to come back to the main point of discussion, whether or not the word Luftwaffe is used as a generic term in everyday usage of the German language, I compiled the following examples. This is just the result of a very brief research on some German language sites, which I would consider as representative to the actual use of German: FAZ, Tagesschau, etc.:
Die amerikanische Luftwaffe hat schon vorab gepanzerte Limousinen, Minibusse und elektronische Ausrüstung des amerikanischen Sicherheitspersonals nach Israel transportiert., Source: [1]
Die US-Streitkräfte haben gestern erst ihre Luftwaffe eine der größten Attacken im Irak seit dem Sturz Saddam Husseins fliegen lassen., Source: [2]
Bombenangriffe der israelischen Luftwaffe auf Gaza-Stadt am helllichten Tag [...], Source: [3]
An den Weihnachtsfeiertagen hatte die türkische Luftwaffe mehrere Angriffe auf vermutete Stellungen kurdischer Rebellen im Nordirak geflogen., Source: [4]
Ein Tornado-Kampfjet der britischen Luftwaffe ist in Schottland nur wenige hundert Meter von einem Atomkraftwerk entfernt abgestürzt., Source: [5]
It should be very easy to come up with numerous additional examples of the usage of Luftwaffe as a generic term in German. - In total, it was clearly shown the discussed statement is true and it's relevant, therefore I'm strongly in favor of keeping it in the article. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (Part 2)
Indeed, a very short search on Spiegel and FR did not show a single hit on the original. Probably because it's not in the news right now, but plenty of foreign luftwaffes show that the word is indeed used as you suggest.
So it's just the example that's wrong. Since I hope that you aren't strongly in favor of the example: What do you think of my new intro?
Two other points one could make: Swiss Air Force; de:Luftwaffe redirects to Luftstreitkräfte.
I'm sorry for the confusion, which would have been short and to the point if the two thugs wouldn't have attacked me. Now let's see that we can bring Bundeswehr to a similar conclusion. --87.189.90.31 (talk)
As a side remark: I even found the word Luftwaffe used in an English article with reference to the Swiss airforce: 54-85 Tiger II fighters are variously reported to remain in service with the Swiss Luftwaffe. Source: [6]. MikeZ (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Luftwaffe is a generic term
2. The English expression 'Air force' is often used for the USAir Force or the British Royal Air Force in German (as in English 'Luftwaffe' is usually used, not 'German Air Force') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.238.230 (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Literal Translation

I added this information (with some links): 

German lit.: air weapon

Denniss removed it with following edit summary: 

there's no literal translation into air weapon, only if you separate Luftwaffe into Luft Waffe

Now in case you don't know German all compounds are written as one word in German. Some examples from de:Komposition (Grammatik): 

Brief + Träger > Briefträger, Abfahrt + Zeit > Abfahrtszeit, kaufen + Haus > Kaufhaus, Fußball + Stadion > Fußballstadion

(My translations would be postman, departure time, department store, football stadium.)

I therefore think that Denniss explanatory statement cannot stand; the seperation which he states as reason to reject my change is always done, simply because English has not nearly as much compunds as German. I therefore reverted the change; Denniss reverted again. This is were we are.

Please tell me your opinion about this. --87.189.88.78 (talk)

It is obvious that Denniss is ignorant of the German language but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Necessary Evil (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of any of the above, “literal” translations—of compounds or simple words: witness those who like to write that Ger: Sturm (assault) maps to Eng: Storm ergo Volksturm=“people's storm”—are usually useless and often confusing unless the purpose is to teach language learners how compounds are formed in the target language. But even then, care is needed to map the components to their correct cognitive meanings for the context: Luft : air + waffe : force(s) = air force, See : sea :  + waffe : force(s) = navy, Panzer : armored vehicles, tanks+waffe : force(s) = armored forces/arm, etc.

Nonetheless, I see no reason—including the defense that “Wikipedia is not a dictionary”—for not including that “Luftwaffe is also the generic German term for air force” without going into any further detail or providing examples like die britische Luftwaffe (or how about: die scheiss Amis, ihre Luftwaffe) to confuse things. Fwiw, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that bad translations are a reason to avoid good ones.
I think we established that the translation makes sense (Mike convinced me): Luftwaffe is both the name of the military formation and a general term; stating the general term (aka translation) helps to avoid mix-ups.
Now, I also think that the literal translation is useful information, as it might help to explain the mindset behind the organisation. I'm not even sure that Luftwaffe is the strongest case which could be made for this, but it is interesting that a relatively aggressive name is used where the related term Verteidigungsministerium/Ministry of Defense is only a small step away from Ministry of Peace. --87.189.117.216 (talk)

WWII: more technically advanced?

I've tagged the statement that the Luftwaffe began WWII with "aircraft much more advanced than their counterparts" as requiring a citation. Certainly, the Luftwaffe dominated the skies, had skilled pilots and high numbers, and had a much better grasp of air tactics at the start of the war, but they had dud models just like the RAF did at the start of the war, and most of the differences in the better planes were tradeoffs — for example, the ME-109 could dive more quickly than the Spitfire (also designed in the 1930s) because of its fuel-injected engine, but many people argue that the Spit was more powerful and manoeverable. How can you determine that one is more technically advanced than the other? You could also spend a long time debating the merits of the ME-109 vs. the French D.520, though the French couldn't produce enough of those in time. In any case, I don't have the expertise to decide this (and it would be Original Research if I did), but we do need a credible citation if we're going to keep that statement. David (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Swiss LUFTWAFFE

Swiss air force is called Luftwaffe too!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.252.161 (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


He's right!! So now I'm thinking whether the Swiss Air Force article should be changed to Schweizer Luftwaffe! This isn't a request, just a thought.

--Hornet94 talk 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Air Leader Africa?

I've never heard this term before, but the book "Germany and the Second World War" (by Germany Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt) mentions it in this book. Was this an official name? Oberiko (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed in section "Reunification"

In the last paragraph of the section the following appears: "One of their primary duties was to serve as aggressor pilots, training other pilots in dissimilar combat tactics." Dissimilar to what? If "various" is meant, then "various" should replace "dissimilar". As it stands the sentence is meaningless (at least to me) so I don't dare touch it. Axel 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to Dissimilar air combat training - it is term used to describe training against different types and sizes of aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Name and content of article

I want to expand this article and I have collected a lot information about the Bundeswehr Luftwaffe. I therefore propose to split the article into Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr), Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht and so on. The header of the article should be a disambiguation page Luftwaffe as it's done with the Heer. I'm German, however I'm well aware of the meaning the "Germanism" Luftwaffe has in American and British English. There should be an etymological or historical section explaining the use of the word. Please comment on it.Garrulus82 (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Garrulus82 (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1946?

The article refers to "the Wehrmacht air arm founded in 1933 and disbanded in 1946." Wouldn't it have been "disbanded," i.e. ceased to function, after the German capitulation on May 7-8, 1945? Sca (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. If you think about it, it couldn't have worked that way at all. --91.55.214.242 (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A source for covert founding of Luftwaffe

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/lipetsk.shtml contains details of early Luftwaffe training in Russia. Someone more versed than I in Luftwaffe history might want to milk this for facts.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation of Luftwaffe

If Luftwaffe doesn't literally mean "Air Weapon" I'll eat my hat... what does Denniss think it stands for?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JurSchagen (talk • contribs) 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Luftwaffe = German Air Force. Nothing else. Air Weapon would be Luft Waffe. --Denniss (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


Okay, you reverted another rephrased edit, obviously you think you own this page? So let me ask you, where do you think the word comes from? It just popped up, nine letters that suddenly meant "air force" and have nothing to do with either "Luft" or "Waffe"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JurSchagen (talk • contribs) 01:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Most of the items in the infobox refer to present-day attributes of the Luftwaffe. Since there is also a specific mention of the "first" (nazi) Luftwaffe in it, this sounds rather weird - nazi's would never adopt "Team Luftwaffe" as a slogan, Me-109 isn't mentioned under "Aircraft flown", Göring would certainly be a notable commander, etc etc. Maybe the "years active" should omit the nazi luftwaffe dates since it was obviously a completely different organization? JurSchagen (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted. This is really one of these embarrassing Wiki-isms which can only be called inexplicable. "Anniversaries: 9 January 1956; Engagements: Spanish Civil War", and nobody bothers to cry foul. --91.55.214.242 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Federal" Republic of Germany... Right, or Wrong?

Hello everyone... Here, in the summary of the subject (the "Luftwaffe"), it's stated that it belongs (saving the disambiguations already explained about "Luftwaffe" being a generic word for "Air Force", and thus eligible to be used by any German-speaking country) to the "Federal Republic of Germany". A lot of people refers to it as a mistake, since they argument that such republic ceased to exist in 1990, with the unification of West (Federal Republic) and East (Democratic Republic) Germanies. This is a mistake, because after the unification the official name of the single Germany is, indeed, "Federal Republic of Germany"; that is, it retained the name of West Germany. Referencing Germany as just "Republic of Germany" is incorrect, and therefore the reference on the summary of this article is accurate.

Staalwart (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Basic English

The syntax of this article is terrible and needs thorough review, particularly for confusing repetitions. Some examples:

"Germany violated the treaty without sanction from Britain, France, or the League of Nations, and neither they nor the league did anything to oppose this." Yes, if an action was without sanction, nothing was done to oppose it; repeating the point is bad and distracting composition. It is also confusing in not clarifying who "they" were.

"Since the Treaty of Versailles forbade Germany from having an air force, German pilots had to be trained in secret from the Treaty of Versailles." Why is the phrase "from the Treat of Versailles" at the end of this sentence? A treaty is not sentient about the existence of air forces or anything else. It is other signatory nations that would be kept in the dark. There is no reason to repeat the treaty reference at all.

And so on. 76.118.229.114 (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong claim

"At the outset of the war, the Luftwaffe was one of the most modern, powerful, and experienced air forces in the world, dominating the skies over Europe with aircraft much more advanced than their foreign counterparts"

  • "with aircraft much more advanced than their foreign counterparts"

There is no source to support this claim. It should be removed. The British Supermarine Spitfire at the outset of WW2 was far superior to any thing the Germans had. Also;

  • "dominating the skies over Europe"

No thats wrong too, the German air force dominated continental Europe, but was unable to dominate the English channel, north sea or the skies over Great Britain and Ireland. 194.46.251.127 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

German airforce today is smaller than Italy, Greece, and spain!!!!!!!!!! UK is the biggest in europe and france second!!! Germany is very small194.46.247.34 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

future and history together?

Someone has been seriously messing with this topic. Right away I see some mentions of the Luftwaffe as having been founded in ?1812? and disbanded in ?2069? How does one do this? Aviation (powered fixed-wing flight)itself did not begin until 1903 (Wright Brothers first flight) and some how I feind it difficult to commprehend being disbanded in 2069. Please knock it off, clowns.Capnjim123 (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism has been removed. Article should now be OK again. --Denniss (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistant use of italics

the use of italics is inconsistant, being written as Luftwaffe in the Lead and other sections, but not in other places. I've raised the issue of whther or not "Luftwaffe" shoulod be italicized or not at WT:MILHIST#Use of italics for Luftwaffe, etc., so an comments fromthe regular editors of this page would be welcome. Once (or if) a consensus is reached there, we need to update this aticle to use the preferred stle. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As a writer, I have always been trained, and later tought my students to italicize any distinctly foreign words or phrases. This would not apply to words that are so ingrained into the domestic language that they are not though of as foreign words. An example would be the Punjabi word pajama, which is widely used in the English language, so it would not be italicized. However, Luftwaffe is a German word that is only used to refer to the air forces of German speaking countries. Based on this, I would say to italicize Luftwaffe.75.255.44.145 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Eurofighter designation?

Is there official Eurofighter designation in Luftwaffe service like Eurofighter EF-2000 or for twin seats: Eurofighter GT? I assume Typhoon name is not used. -SojerPL (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The currenct government issue isn't correct

Hey guys!

I'm from Germany, so that's why I'm not able to contribute on a high level in your language, I'm sorry.

So what I want to tell you is that the Luftwaffe wasn't founded by the Nazis. It's true that they called their airforce Luftwaffe, too, but it isn't true that today's Luftwaffe is identical with the Luftwaffe in the Third Reich.

So please edit it, I won't 'cause you would have changed it back. Thank you!


Greetz Lasse


P.S.: Sorry for my bad English!
-- Uhlemanns (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh? Hitler came to power in 1933, Luftwaffe in 1935.....that would make it the NAZI leaders in charge is creating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.173.150 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Well he suggest making Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) and Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr), but i think History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) is enought to separete natzi issue from nowadays air force. --SojerPL (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

needs to be broken up

this article is the worst of the German military articles so far! In it's "catch all" approach it throws air forces together, which have nothing to do with each other. The German wiki is correct in its approach by dividing the four completely unrelated air forces into 4 separate articles

This article needs to be split asap. noclador (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia even the German version is not a reliable source. I think completely unrelated is probably a bit of a stretch. MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
there was a consistency in personnel, but legally there is no connection! one was disbanded in 1919, one was founded in 1935 and one in 1956 - and the one in 1956 made it clear all the time that they are not related! especially erroneous is the title of the article History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) - that Luftwaffe is unrelated to the one founded in 1956 and unrelated to the one disbanded in 1919; That Luftwaffe existed from 1 March 1935 to 8 Mai 1945; the proper place for this article is Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) and nowhere else as the article spans already spans 100% (and more) of this formations existence. noclador (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, thankyou for your comments. Different language wikipedias do have some ability to vary the format of their treatment of subjects. I tend to believe that if this article was split up completely presumptiously, it would be re-built up again, because Luftwaffe is also the generic German term for an air force. Noclador, I tend to think that before this article is split to the four winds, it needs some wider commentary, and probably a notice at WT:MILHIST - it's a very prominent article, and needs some wider En:wiki commentary. Such a wider discussion will also mean more long-term stability for the final article(s) arrangement. Options include:
  • this page as a disambiguation page only, listing Austrian, Swiss, WW1, WW2, and NVA
  • this page as a summary page, with a number of paragraphs about Austrian, Swiss, and the German air forces since c.1915, with referenced statements at the top saying from authoritative sources that there are no lineage links officially maintained between the German air services.
  • no page at all.
However, just because de:wiki does it one way does not necessarily mean that en:wiki has to do it exactly the same way, and because this is a pretty prominent military article, I would strongly advise that we consider this carefully and slowly, with wide consultation - which will also avoid revert wars/page move wars later on. Noclador, you feel strongly about this, would you mind please alerting WT:MILHIST to this issue and discussion, as well as WT:GERMANY?
Finally, for History of the Luftwaffe 1933-45, I'd say two things: first, was it the only 'Luftwaffe' in existence at the time, thus making it inescapable which one was being talked about? Second, what about 'History of the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe 1933-1945'. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
already there are all the articles as it should be:
  1. Luftstreitkräfte
  2. History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) - needs to be renamed Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)
  3. East German Air Force
  4. Luftwaffe (needs to be cleaned of the unrelated air forces and should be renamed Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr))
at Luftwaffe should be a disambiguation page. thoughts? noclador (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
re: History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945): the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe was the only one in existence at the time (Austria kept to the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) which forbade Austria to possess air forces and Switzerland only named its air force Luftwaffe in 1996)
a quick side note - the name of the Swiss air force over time: [7]
  • 1914-1924 Fliegerabteilung
  • 1925 - 1936 Fliegertruppe
  • 1936 - 1995 Flieger- und Fliegerabwehrtruppen
  • since 1996 Luftwaffe
back to History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) - there is no need to mention a year at the Luftwaffe article - it is like calling the Confederate States Army article History of the Confederate States Army (1859-1865) and then adding part of the Confederate States Army article to the United States Army article, as they are both Armies in America and so surely they are connected somehow in their lineage... but that would be wrong! There was only one Confederate States Army and there was only one Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) and that Luftwaffe existed even for a shorter time then mentioned in the article and it's entire history is between the beginnings of the German rearmament and the unconditional surrender of Germany afterwards. noclador (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the various US aerial forces are split up by organization, even though to my knowledge they do share a common lineage (see for example United States Army Air Forces, United States Army Air Service, etc.). The article for US Air Force covers only the modern history of the organization (that is, since about 2005 - a separate History of the United States Air Force article covers the extended history). Parsecboy (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
A split would make sense even if they where connected by more than a shared country. I this case there is even more reason to do so. Agathoclea (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
To turn this into a disambiguation page seems to be the cleanest way to go, especially since the Swiss Luftwaffe has nothing to do with the German Luftwaffe. —Kusma (t·c) 17:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Dont have a problem with this being a dab page but the current Lufwaffe should really be at German Air Force as this is English wikipedia and Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr) is not a name used in English. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Split

I have reverted these changes. First of all, it is always wrong to try to rename an article, or a disambiguation page, by copying and pasting its content instead of using the "move" function. Second, these changes were contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and affected literally thousands of other articles that contain wikilinks to "Luftwaffe." At a minimum, any change in the title of this article, or of Luftwaffe (disambiguation), should be proposed on WP:RM and subjected to discussion before being carried out. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

As this is a far more complicated issue then a simple move (Luftwaffe being a primary article) there are two possibilities:

First proposal:

  1. move the content about the current Luftwaffe (1956-today) from the article Luftwaffe to German Air Force (now a redirect to Luftwaffe)
  2. delete the content about the 1935-1946 Luftwaffe at Luftwaffe as it is a duplicate of material at History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)
  3. rename History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) to Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)
  4. put a disambiguation page to the article Luftwaffe

Second proposal:

  1. move the content about the current Luftwaffe (1956-today) from the article Luftwaffe to German Air Force
  2. delete the content about the 1935-1946 Luftwaffe at Luftwaffe
  3. move History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) to Luftwaffe
  4. put a link to Luftwaffe (disambiguation) page on top of the Luftwaffe article

any of the above is fine with me, but the current mix of two separate entities at Luftwaffe is factually, historically and officially wrong! noclador (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Agree 2nd proposal, as the historical Luftwaffe is often known by this term in the history books, but the term is less often used for the modern German Air Force and would seem odd. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I prefer the first proposal (but I personally prefer disambiguation pages to hatnotes on essentially every occasion). It will lead to less wrong links if the default page is a disambiguation page, and the pages currently linking to Luftwaffe (meaning both the current and the former German air force) will only have to be checked once, not on a continuous basis. —Kusma (t·c) 09:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please bear in mind that if the disambiguation page is moved to Luftwaffe, this will affect every page that contains a link to "Luftwaffe"; all of these links will need to be reviewed and pointed to the correct post-reorganization article. But there are only about 4,500 of them, so no problem.... --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    If we split the pre-1945 and post-1955 Luftwaffe pages (and there seems to be consensus to do so), all of the links will need to be reviewed (as some of them will be wrong), independent of whether Luftwaffe is a disambiguation page or not. This review will be easier if Luftwaffe is a disambiguation page, for two reasons: (a) there are specialized tools for repairing links to disambiguation pages (b) it is easy to see which links have been checked (those that have been fixed). If Luftwaffe is only about the pre-1945 stuff, finding and fixing all the links to Luftwaffe that should go to the modern Luftwaffe article is going to be difficult, as there is no easy way to find out which of these links still needs to be checked. —Kusma (t·c) 11:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Luftwaffe definitely needs to be a disambig, NOT a redirect. There are so many meanings involved.. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Solution

Am I right in assuming that the consensus is for a split? If so - then the consensus seems to be for current German Luftwaffe at German Air Force; but I can see no consensus yet under what name the Nazi Germany Luftwaffe should be: Luftwaffe? Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)?... (the first is my preference) any suggestions would be welcome on how to proceed. thanks. noclador (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Noclador, thankyou for your patience on this and waiting for opinions from others. Personally, I agree that the current de:Luftwaffe should be at German Air Force, and because the name of the force in 33-45/46 was not 'Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)' it was simply 'Luftwaffe', my opinion would be for the existing page name 'Luftwaffe (1933-45)' or whatever it was at. However, 'Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)' should be established as a redirect. That's my thoughts on this. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Will split it in 3 days

As the discussion has gone stale and there was no real opposition to a split I will split the article into two over this weekend; namely into:

  • Luftwaffe (1933-1945)
  • German Air Force (current)

noclador (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Spelling - defence or defense?

Both are used in the article but it should be made consistent as far as possible. I have a slight preference for "defence" as it's a European topic so perhaps "geographically" closer to the BrE spelling than to the AmE, but I am not sure what rules, if any, should/can be applied here. Comments please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I did the bold thing and made the spelling consistent throughout - I chose "defence". Roger (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Mass renaming of Luftwaffe across other articles?

See [8] and others.

Luftwaffe meets WP:COMMONNAME, even for today's service. Even if the WP articles are split (which seems reasonable) and even if one of these articles is renamed from Luftwaffe to German Air Force, then the presentation name of the link in other articles should remain unchanged.

If and only if the name "Luftwaffe" is incorrect, should this name (as the presentation name) be changed in other articles. If Luftwaffe does indeed meet WP:COMMONNAME for the current service, then it should remain as the link. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Above is a long discussion with all kinds of proposals what to do and those editors that participated endorsed a split of the article into Luftwaffe to German Air Force. As far as I can tell current news sources use German Air Force for the current air force of Germany and Luftwaffe for the WWII air force. However google searches are totally unusable because most articles/new items use both. And are you sure it meets WP:COMMONNAME even for today's service? There are a lot of instances when it says German Luftwaffe for todays service on wikipedia - which believe points out that even among editors Luftwaffe is not a name common enough to drop the German in front of it. noclador (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You're not dropping the "German" in front of Luftwaffe, you're dropping the "Luftwaffe".
Flight International are currently using "German Luftwaffe". Strikes me as somewhat tautological, but it's still far from "Air Force". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, as there is the Swiss Luftwaffe; Flight International probably has to call it German Luftwaffe to disambiguate between the two. Well, at first I wanted to only ensure that the articles would point to the right article after the split, but I found a bewildering array of variations and so began to streamline it down to the two most common: therefore I took out all instances of German Luftwaffe, Bundesluftwaffe, West German Air Force, West German Luftwaffe, German Federal Luftwaffe, Federal Air Force (Luftwaffe), Bundeswehr Luftwaffe, etc. etc. and replaced them with Luftwaffe for pre-1946, with Luftstreitkräfte for pre-1920 and with German Air Force for post-1956. What steps do you suggest should be taken now? as German Air Force and Luftwaffe are the most commonly used names I assume we agree that the choice should be only between these two? How can we establish which name is more appropriate for the current air force? (There is no doubt whatsoever that for WWII Luftwaffe is definitely the COMMONNAME). noclador (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Officially, the German Air Force Official site: translated) uses Luftwaffe. Can a compromise be suggested, add (Luftwaffe) in brackets to any postwar usage when you first refer to the German Air Force post-World War II. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

The proposed compromise is fine with me! Do other editors agree with it? noclador (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That looks like a typical wikicompromise, equally bad for all parties. How about either [[German Air Force|Luftwaffe]] or [[Luftwaffe (1956)|Luftwaffe]] ?
There are two issues: a canonical name for the article on the body formed after 1956, and a contextually appropriate form to link this from articles such as Eurofighter Typhoon. In almost every situation, "Luftwaffe" is the appropriate link text. Even in English language texts, this is the WP:COMMONNAME. If the Typhoon links need to have their appearance changed, that implies that the previous link title was wrong, which it clearly wasn't (that context just doesn't depend upon the name or date scope of the target article).
If we have to discuss Swiss or Austrian aviation, then the link can be qualified further. In most cases though, that would be superfluous.Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

War crimes

I have reverted the edits which removed a picture of medical experiments conducted by the Luftwaffe on concentration camp victims. The picture is entirely relevant to the section, and those who removed it should be aware of the need to remain neutral and unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.48.77 (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC) I have reverted the deletion since the picture and section are fully referenced. 81.156.48.77 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No-one is disputing the truth of the claims made, the question is whether they're sufficiently important and relevant to be warranted in this one, short, top-level article on the Luftwaffe. This isn't a long textbook on the subject, so space is limited. Was the luftwaffe's involvement deep enough to make this important at this level? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think in section war crimes should be "some" indications about bombing civilian targets (which was begun in 01-09-1939 in Poland - and even earlier in Spain) and shootinng to rescuing pilots and crews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.22.3 (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) be merged into Luftwaffe. With the post-1956 air force split from the Luftwaffe into its own article German Air Force, it makes sense to combine History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) back into the Luftwaffe article. (It was split out from the Luftwaffe article in 2006 [9] after a discussion that the history section regarding WWII grew so big it warranted its own article away from the current German Air Force). noclador (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I fear you might have mixed something up: There was no merger yet, the proposal to merge is from today. The material you re-inserted here has been split and expanded into a new article! A task that found the support of the people, who participated in the above discussion, which has been ongoing since May 3rd! So - as the split of the article into two separate articles for months was not opposed, and an announcement that I will split the article did not draw any opposition for 2 weeks, I did just that today and then expanded the new article considerably (see history at German Air Force). Now I propose to merge History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) back into Luftwaffe, because the original reason to actually create the History of the Luftwaffe article (taking up to much space of the current German Air Force article) is not an issue anymore! noclador (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm striking my vote because I was not paying enough attention here. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - this can safely be merged back here. I don't know what Bink is referring to; the split gained consensus above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Bzuk (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC).
  • Cmt, since a consensus has been shown above and there was notice and plenty of time for others to comment, I would put forth that this discussion be closed and the merger be done. Kierzek (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge

As there is consensus to merge, I plan to merge the two articles in about a weeks time. noclador (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Merged

Merger proposal found consensus, therefore merger executed on 26 September 2012. noclador (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Belated support

Good decision. There is much to be done on this article. Dapi89 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-vamp

The article to do with re-writing and since the merger has moved the bulk of the edits I've inflicted on wikipedia, I hope there are no objections to re-arranging the article as follows:

  • Origins
    • Luftwaffe and Nazi ideology
  • Pre-paring for war (merits and omissions)
    • German air doctrine
    • Supporting industry/military-industrial complex/production
    • Intelligence and relations with other organisations intel.
    • Office training
    • Air crew training
    • Spanish Civil War
      • Experiences and innovations
  • Performance World War II
    • Interservice cooperation Poland/Norway/Denmark
    • French Campaign (primarily concerning for tac/op lessons learned in Poland and Spain) and how they enhanced the aforementioned in 1940
    • Operation Sea Lion - BoB controversy
    • Eastern Front - mainly strategic and operational perspective.
    • Battle in Western Theatres (re-run of above)
    • Air Defence of Germany
    • Battle of Atlantic
  • High Command relationships
    • Disagreements/conflicts
    • Leadership/command and strategy
  • Luftwaffe Ground forces
  • War Crimes

. Dapi89 (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Coventry Blitz

Some editors seem to think that the Luftwaffe didn't bomb London and Coventry for their civilian population. IT is clear from Guernica onwards, that the Luftwaffe deliberately targeted cities for their civilians, so as to terrorize them. 81.132.120.48 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Some editors of this site appear to promote neo-Nazi ideas, such as the ludicrous concept that the Luftwaffe wasn't bombing civilians in Guernica or Madrid before 1939. I have reverted the absurd sentence readopted by these editors. 81.132.120.48 (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Educate yourself, read some books about the events and strategy/goals by the Luftwaffe, then come back for discussion without your bias. They did not directly target civilians, they attacked several targets in cities without taking enough care/measures to reduce possible civilian casualties --Denniss (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


Your studied ignorance of the crimes of the Luftwaffe is staggering: have you not heard of the German bombing of London, Coventry, and earlier in the war, Warsaw? The Luftwaffe practised their odious methods on Guernica and Madrid before applying the lessons to other cities and towns in Europe. I suggest you start reading yourself the official histories of the war. Or perhaps your nationality prevents you taking a neutral attitude to German crimes during the last war? 81.132.120.48 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well said Denniss. Dapi89 (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
There is, possibly, room for some debate as to how much of the bombing carried out by either side during WW2 was terror bombing and how much was legitimate strategic bombing (and, for that matter, how much strategic bombing was carried out with a depraved indifference for civilian casualties), but that terror bombing took place isn't really in dispute. How far definitions of "war crimes" can be (or, more pertinently, have been) applied is yet another matter. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
"IT is clear from Guernica onwards, that the Luftwaffe deliberately targeted cities for their civilians"
This is far from clear. Although such things clearly happened, it is over-simplifying to say that they were the only German policy. In the run-up to Operation Sealion and thus the Battle of Britain, German bombing was strategically targeting British defences, not specifically civilians. Hitler's own Directive 17 of August 1940 keeps this focus on military materiel (including ports) and not civilian cities as deliberate terror bombing. I do not claim this was a moral standpoint, merely one of military tactics and focusing on the invasion goal. Provocation by the RAF through raids on Berlin (so light as to have no serious military effect) caused this directive to be rescinded and on 4th September for Hitler to threaten similar raids specifically against civilians. Operation Loki begins on the 7th as deliberate anti-civilian terror bombing of London and will go on for two months.
On 14th September, Hitler winds up the Battle of Britain. It hasn't worked, so he goes all out with one last enormous daylight raid, hence BoB day being observed even now on the 15th. It still doesn't work. After this, the focus is on night bombing of civilian targets, initially by continuing with Loki.
Coventry marks the start of a technically different campaign, but not a strategically or morally different one. Loki has finished shortly before and now the technical equipment of Kampfgruppe 100 and the X-Gerät is in place for something different. Moonlight Sonata is thus the first raid to use electronic navigation of this form, dedicated pathfinder aircraft and also a fire-raising strategy (which only works with a large and concentrated force who can all find the same target). As a moral target against civilians though, it's no different than the earlier Loki raids of the last two months.
A similar reprisal to provocation happened a year and a half later with the Baedeker Blitz, after the RAF raids on Lubeck. Note that Coventry though was not a Baedeker raid. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lemma

I am not happy with the current organization of article titles concerning the various German air forces. Whereas as a non-native English speaker I am not really interested in the details, there is at least one point that is really strange: If a reader searches for the term "Luftwaffe", he will not get to a disambiguation page, but directly to the entry on the Luftwaffe from 1935-1945, that is, to this very article. This should be changed in a way that "Luftwaffe" is a disambiguation page, from where the reader then can be directed to "Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)"/ "Luftwaffe (German Air Force 1935-45)" on the one hand, and "German Air Force (Bundeswehr)"/ "Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr)" on the other (plus of course the other air forces, e.g. the German Imperial Air Force, or that of the former GDR). As I said, I am not interested in the detailed term used in the English language, native speakers anyway may be more competent in that matter than I am. But using "Luftwaffe" exclusively for the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe is strange, given that the current German and Swiss air forces are designated with the term "Luftwaffe", which is but a generic German-language term for any air force. I am aware that renaming an article might be difficult, and have read some of the archived discussions on the subject. I will not do anything before we have discussed the topic. Opinions? Levimanthys (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Its a matter of usage in English of the different terms, hence the recent changes. In English language sources any mention of the Luftwaffe normally refers to the second world war organisation, the modern air force is called originally the West German Air Force (WGAF) and then German Air Force. Because of this association nearly all readers searching for the term Luftwaffe would be interested in the wartime organisation. The explanation at the top of the article should redirect readers to the other users if they are confused. MilborneOne (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I am aware that an article should reflect the current usage in English, and I do understand that "Luftwaffe" in English is more often used for the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe than for the current one. However, the term is also used from time to time for the current German Air Force, which may not be so obvious at first sight because the interest in the 1935-45 Luftwaffe is exponentially higher than in the current Luftwaffe. But see for example here: Luftwaffe officers enjoy southern hospitality and at many other places allover the net; this in my opinion would justify that the lemma "Luftwaffe" should be a disambiguation page. I have no problem in leaving the current Luftwaffe at "German Air Force", and the historic one at "Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)" emphasizing that the term "Luftwaffe" is more strongly associated with the 1935-45 Luftwaffe than the post-1956 one. By the way, I don't understand what the page with the name "Luftwaffe (disambiguation)" is good for. Levimanthys (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think considering that "Luftwaffe" is the german term for all air forces, "Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)" would be more appropriate than just "Luftwaffe". Just to avoid misunderstandings right from the beginning.--Ickerbocker (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As this is English wikipedia it doesnt really matter and it is all explained in the lead The Luftwaffe was the aerial warfare branch of the German Wehrmacht and the note at the top of the page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Guess what, I know that this is the english wikipedia. The point is that Luftwaffe is still the official name of the current german air force. You can translate it as you want but it does not change its official german name (which is not meaningless for an encyclopaedia). By using just the lemma Luftwaffe you automatically imply, that this name was only used for the Wehrmacht Air Force and this is wrong. I don't see the problem in putting a (Wehrmacht) behind Luftwaffe. It clearifys the issue right on the first view.--Ickerbocker (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Doctrinally advanced"?

At present, the first para includes this:

"the Luftwaffe was reformed on 26 February 1935 and grew to become one of the strongest, most doctrinally advanced, and most battle-experienced air forces in the world"

I have no idea what is meant here by "doctrinally advanced" - in what "doctrines" were they apparently showing their skills?Thomas Peardew (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Aah, I see - text by someone whose first language isn't English. I think "doctrine" etc throughout should be "tactics" Thomas Peardew (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
So should it be changed to something like "tactically [or "strategically"] most sophisticated"? Alfietucker (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is there still two separate Luftwaffe articles?

When I click on Luftwaffe for Infrared homing (redirected from heat-seeking missile) it directs me to the 1935-1945 German Luftwaffe. Can we just merge the two already? There is no reason I should be redirected to the Nazi era air force for heat-seeking missiles. I couldn't be the only one surprised when a eagle with a swastika showed up when I thought I was being directed to the Luftwaffe

(Please sign your posts, thanks) The use of two articles for what a separate things was decided upon after some discussion that term Luftwaffe was more related in English to the Second World War entity, thus the modern Air Force is at German Air Force. All you need to do is correct the link in the article you were looking at. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

War crimes mostly missing.

The current article is devoid of any mention of war crimes(besides brief mention of human experiments) such as terror bombing or strafing civilians. This needs to be amended.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have some referenced info to add please do so. What you added to the intro is a no-go. Strafing civilians, as said as it is, was done by almost every air force of WW2 (not easy to spot the difference to soliers from a fast moving plane), the "terror bombing" the Luftwaffe is often accused to have done was also done by the RAF and USAAF (the latter more in firebombing raids on Japan). --Denniss (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The info on medical experiments is already in the text, so to the extent that the lede summarizes the main body of the article, at least that should be mentioned. I'm also pretty sure that the strafing of civilians was not "done by almost every air force of WW2", at least not on the same scale, and not on purpose (the whole point is that they did spot the difference and attacked purposefully). Volunteer Marek  18:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Surhone, Timpledon, Marseken

Sources written by Surhone, Timpledon, Marseken need to be double checked (and possibly deleted) as per VDM Publishing § Wikipedia content duplication. Ihaveacatonmydesk Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Would there be any objections to moving the paragraph in the lead (starting with "German day and night fighter pilots claimed roughly 70,000 aerial victories during World War II...") into the body of the article? This seems to excessive intricate detail for the lead. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Since there's been no objection, I will go ahead and move. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
sorry i didn't realize there was a talk about this. Since it is a non functioning organization anymore, I felt it necessary to include it's achievements and losses. SWF88 (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Strength by Quarter by Front

Hi, I have found a document, which lists Luftwaffe strength, i.e. No planes per quarter, against estimates by section AI-3(b)[1] for first line strength (against Blighty I think) and European war 1939-1945 breakdowns. They are fairly big tables. The doc is called Air 40-1207 Gaf.pdf. I can prepare the tables, if somebody wants to them in. scope_creep (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Glenmore S. Trenear-Harvey (13 April 2009). Historical Dictionary of Air Intelligence. Scarecrow Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-8108-6294-4.

Recent edit

I streamlined the origins section; pls see diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wielun

Regarding this edit: edit, that removed the cited content with an edit summary "untrustworthy":

  • After the bombing Nazi propaganda claimed that there was a cavalry unit in the city, although in reality no military units were stationed[1]

References

  1. ^ "Wieluń, 1 września, 4.40 rano"

From the linked article (via Google translate):

  • Shortly after the conquest of Poland, a book "Unsere Flieger ueber Polen" (Our aircraft over Poland) was published under the editorship of the Luftwaffe commander Marshal Albert Kesselring. One of the pilots involved in the bombing of Wielun relates: "My first attack on a real-world target! (...) The streets in the bottom look like a postcard, and the moving dark spots are the target. (...) At the height of 1,200 meters, the first bomb drops. And now look down. The bomb fell to the street, and the black mass which was gliding along the street stops. (...) the last look: there's nothing left of a Polish cavalry brigade."
  • Today we can firmly say - says Dr. Olejnik - neither in Wielun, or even in the vicinity of Wielun there was no Polish brigade. Not only that, there was not any other Polish military formation. That Nazi propaganda had to come up with a brigade to justify the massacre of unarmed Polish civilians.

Source: full article

The historian being cited is Tadeusz Olejnik who has an article on pl.wiki: link. The source supports the content being cited, so I don't see why it needed to be removed. I would appreciate feedback on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

First I hope this will not become another editwar between you two. Second the Germans had intelligence information about a cavalry unit there so they believed there was something to attack. Whether or not this cavalry unit existed I can't tell. They probably believed the unit had its base there but was moved elesewhere some days earlier unknown to them. --Denniss (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

NTO is a tabloid newspaper with super natonalistic POV, but Prof. Olejnik on the other side, is a very renowned historian, being himself a Wieluń citizen. Contrary to what the newspaper wants to claim, the German intelligence (Abwehr) mistook the local unit movements of marching infantry (28th Inf Div., and 36th Inf. Reg, which used horses for locomotion) in Wieluń on 29th and 30rd August (morning) as the Wolynska Cavalry Brigade, when they made their decision to attack the city. But, on the night of 30rd August the city was then cleared from any military activity and the 36th Inf. Reg. deployed its troops only around 4-5 km in the towns outskirts, while the Wolynska Cavalry Brigade was located ~ 60 km south of Wieluń.

The bombing of Wieluń was not exploited and used by Nazi propaganda, although the "Wehrmachtsbericht" noted with a single entry for Wieluń as "Ziel vernichtet", Prof. Stanisław Tadeusz Olejnik and A. Wesolowski generally advocate and claim in their thesis for the book (Wieluń był pierwszy, see link: https://ipn.gov.pl/pl/publikacje/ksiazki/12604,Wielun-byl-pierwszy-Bombardowania-lotnicze-miast-regionu-lodzkiego-we-wrzesniu-1.html) that the poor and inaccurate assessment of the "Abwehr" (German intelligence) did incorrectly recognized the marching infantry as for the Wolynska Cavalry Brigade.

The tabloid NTO certainly skiped some realites and I would only use it with caution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narkiewiczy (talk • contribs) 13:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That would make sense although I'm somewhat uncortable to believe this information posted by a freshly registered user. --Denniss (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Related to the discussion: Talk:Bombing_of_Wieluń#Results_of_historiographical_research. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Luftwaffe redirect

Why is luftwaffe, the name for the German air force, redirecting here?

As far as I can see Luftwaffe is not a redirect, please read the note at the top of the article which should explain. MilborneOne (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Additions to "Critical engine development problems" section

Not too long ago, "not enough" background info about exactly WHY the German aviation industry had to arrive at such "welded-together engine"-style solutions (from Hermann Goering's own words on that exact subject on August 13, 1942) to not having over-1,500 kW-maximum output aviation powerplants available for more advanced piston-engined combat aircraft seemed to exist at the start of that section's text...the needed info seemed to mostly be "in place" within the background section's text concerning the English language Wikipedia article on the Luftwaffe's Bomber B advanced high-speed bomber program, so it was adapted, with appropriate citation-referencing, to "fill the gap" for the stated section in this article.

The PIPE (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luftwaffe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Critical engine development problems

That section might be worth to be redacted a bit. I would not dare to challenge the general direction as "everybody knows" that because of material shortages and limited access to high-octane fuel (and probably for other reasons) Germany had all kinds of problems to achieve top performance in the air (and elsewhere). However I find that the text misleads the reader. For instance after reading the first part of it one might come to the conclusion that Germany was more or less unable to make good engines in the 1.500kW range whereas the allies had at least two superior designs. The high weight of some German engines is repeatetdly stated as if it were way to high ... Only after I opened the pages of the mentioned engines I found that actually the German Jumo 222 generated more power per kilogram dry weight than the touted Double Wasp and Duplex-Cyclone. Now I suppose that if I would carefully study various engine versions and their dates of introduction it may well be that Germany would come out second, but it would not be as bad as that section would make believe - especially under the consideration that it had to build its engines from worse materials and for worse fuel. So why the strange drift in this text ? Disclaimer: Yes, I am German, but I have absolutely no interest in defending Nazi-Germany in any way or form. I came to the topic out of interest in historical fact and was irritated by the text (How can you mention the weight of an engine and not als mention that of the supposedly superior one, for instance ?). At the end what brought the Luftwaffe down was lack of fuel and lack of experienced pilots ... in addition to the early mistake to ignore certain radar frequency ranges (among others). JB. --92.195.20.136 (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Development of several advanced German engine designs was halted in 1940 due to Hitler considering the war won. When development was subsequently re-instated or new engine programmes started it turned out to be too late, and the resulting engines were in too early a state of development, were down on the rated power, and too unreliable, to enter service in large numbers. These same problems has been faced earlier by the UK with the Rolls-Royce Vulture and the Napier Sabre, the Vulture eventually being cancelled, the Sabre taking several years development to become reliable enough for normal service use. The R-2800 engine also faced similar problems early in development. In peacetime a high power aero engine was estimated to take five years from initial design to the engine entering service.
100 octane aviation fuel was available but only in relativity small quantities, the standard required for Luftwaffe engines being either 87 octane, or 93 or 96 octane, fuel of which was available in larger quantities, especially in countries that Germany was invading. Hence it made sense to have engines that could use captured fuel stocks. In contrast the RAF went over to exclusive use of 100 octane fuel in 1940-41. The German liquid cooled engines were of larger cubic capacity than the equivalent Allied liquid-cooled engines which helped to offset the handicap of not using 100 octane fuel. Generally a late war Bf 109 or Fw 190 assisted by MW 50 boost was just as fast as a late war Spitfire or Mustang at the altitudes that had by then become important.
Generally the Luftwaffe suffered from poor production and development planning for the war it was eventually to fight, and it was only after Albert Speer took over that things started to become better, but by then it was too late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Luftwaffe war crimes

I am considering expanding the war crimes section to make it more complete. Specifically, I would like to add a discussion on war crimes committed during bandit fighting operations by Luftwaffe security divisions (covered in Hitler’s Bandit Hunters and the main subject of the same author's 400-page thesis). The behavior of the Fallschirmjäger in Crete should also go in this section. Also, I think it's worth a mention that by the end of the war, a significant fraction of Luftwaffe aircraft was being produced in concentration camps (see Messerschmitt Bf 109#Production and Messerschmitt Me 262#Production for examples). Catrìona (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Their involvement in the Brieg subcamp of Gross-Rosen could be added. I don't think anyone was ever prosecuted but USHMM says Brieg was mostly staffed by Luftwaffe. Seraphim System (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure where ideology belongs in the article, but the Luftwaffe was not an apolitical organization as some have claimed. According to Blood (2001, p. 76): "The SS and Luftwaffe were not the competing organisations from opposite ends of some abstract social and political measure that some veteran pilots liked to maintain after the end of the war. They were both distinctly National Socialist organizations that also achieved a remarkably high level of co-operation with each other." Catrìona (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Luftwaffe, as a technocrat-driven, more "modern" arm of the Wehrmacht, was more "Nazified" than the army, IIRC. (Not sure where I read this; I will try to find a source). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
"They were both distinctly National Socialist organizations that also achieved a remarkably high level of co-operation with each other" Nazi Germany itself was plagued by infighting between organizations, due to overlapping duties and mandates. The post-war memoirs could refer to that kind of rivalry.

We imply a similar situation in the Reichsgau article: "The Reichsgaue were an attempt to resolve the administrative chaos resulting from the mutually overlapping jurisdictions and different boundaries of the NSDAP Party Gaue, placed under a Party Gauleiter, and the federal states, under a Reichsstatthalter responsible to the Ministry of the Interior (in the Prussian provinces, the equivalent post was that of Oberpräsident). Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick had long desired to streamline the German administration, and the Reichsgaue were the result... "Dimadick (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The information about Luftwaffe bombing civilian targets should not be under the war crimes section. According to the Allied war crimes article, "no positive or specific customary international humanitarian law with respect to aerial warfare existed prior to and during World War II. This is also why no Japanese and German officers were prosecuted at the post-World War II Allied war crime trials for the aerial raids on Shanghai, Chongqing, Warsaw, Rotterdam, and British cities during the Blitz." --Virtuus (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Just on a side note: Will the RAF and USAF/USAAF also get extended war crimes sections in their respective articles, or is that reserved to the Luftwaffe? 105.4.2.48 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
105.4.2.48: The RAF and the USAAF did not exploit the slave labor of prisoners detained for their race and worked to death. Nor did they participate in unethical medical experiments on nonconsenting victims or in genocide. See also false equivalence. Catrìona (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The RAF bombing campaigns weren't against 'undefended targets', as the Nazi, Italian, and Japanese ones were against such cities and towns as Shanghai, Chongqing, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Guernica, etc. Neither did the British consider charging Hermann Göring for his campaigns against British cities, as they were all 'defended' and so were legitimate targets. Bombing an undefended city was a War Crime. Bombing a defended one wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Table of Aircraft numbers per quarter

Hi Fellow Wikipedians of the Luftwaffe article!!. Excellent article. I have this table here I came across from a Luftwaffe document. It is stored in here: User:Scope creep/sanbox3. It is based on two estimates. The German quarter masters office and the RAF A.I. 3(b) office. I have seen the diagram in two locations which would indicate it may be fairly accurate. I don't know what you think? I would like to put in somewhere. The colours on it may be a dodgy. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 16:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Might be better on this page: Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–45). scope_creepTalk 16:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 22:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Luftwaffe → Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) – Luftwaffe can refer to both Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) and Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr), and, considering the sensitivity of the subject, the word should really not be assumed to refer to one or the other unless it's abundantly clear from the context. The current Luftwaffe page fails to cover the use of the term appropriately, leading the reader to believe that the term does not refer to the German Air Force. The English Wikipedia should follow de:Luftwaffe's example and turn Luftwaffe into a disambiguation page. Ragnagord (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia, not the German Wikipedia. In English, whenever someone refers to the "Luftwaffe" they mean the WWII Luftwaffe. Adding that parenthetical disambiguation to the title would only confuse most English readers, which is the exact opposite of what a disambiguation is supposed to do. Also, "Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr)" is merely a redirect to German Air Force. We only add a parenthetical disambiguation into the title when there are multiple articles with the same title, which there are not on the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not think that that's true. If I search for the word, I find many English sources about the current air force. The current article does not cover the use of the term 'Luftwaffe' adequately. Ragnagord (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to see those sources, as my search results are heavily weighted in favor of the Nazi air force. Maybe about 5% of returns are about the current force. And those tend to be from "English as a second language" sources. --Khajidha (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:ENGLISH. "Luftwaffe" in English-language sources refers to the air force of Nazi Germany, and a disambig is not needed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose article name follows common English usage of the term. MilborneOne (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGLISH as previously stated.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGLISH Rreagan007 explains it quite well. --Khajidha (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGLISH and Rreagan007 Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
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.

Isn't the Luftwaffe still the word for the German Air Force?

If so, the lead section of this article should be reworded because saying that "Luftwaffe was" would be misleading, because people would think it is not the word currently used for the German Air Force. Thinker78 (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please re-read the intro again and the info/explanation above the intro. --Denniss (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I did, it still is confusing. After reading both the explanation and the entire leader, I'm still led to believe that the term Luftwaffe does not refer to the current German Air Force. Ragnagord (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you asking about German language usage or English language usage? In German, Luftwaffe is simply the word for "Air Force" and is used to refer to both the Nazi air force and the modern Germzn air force. But this article is written in English, not German. In English, the word Luftwaffe is used only for the Nazi air force. --Khajidha (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree. I came here looking specifically for the German Air Force under the Federal Republic. It smacks of POV to me to suggest that Luftwaffe ONLY refers to the German air service under the Nazi regime in WW2. At minimum, this should go to a disambiguation page. And on a basic level, if you have to ask people who care enough to post on the Talk page to re-read an intro paragraph, that's a big sign that the intro paragraph is insufficient from a UX perspective. 68.32.209.67 (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, done. It is misleading to say "The Luftwaffe was the aerial warfare branch of the combined German Wehrmacht military forces during World War II", which seems to imply that "Luftwaffe" refers solely to the German Air Force during WW2, if that's not the case. And I think I can answer my own question: it seems to be that Luftwaffe is still how the German Air Force is currently known. [1] [2][3]

References

  1. ^ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-2-chances-beat-lockheed-131300787.html
  2. ^ http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21203/Germany_Tiling_Towards_F_35_for_Tornado_Replacement#.Whxr7YhMHIU
  3. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5121687/Terrifying-moment-jet-lurches-runway.html

Thinker78 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

In english language sources the term seems most often associated with the WW2 version, that's why the page is set up this way with the disclaimer/info on top of the article. You may find similar discussions in the talk page archive.--Denniss (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Luftwaffe is also the name of the modern days German Air Force (as it actually means Air Force) and I strongly recommend to make this a disambiguation site on which Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr), Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) and Luftstreitkräfte are linked, or have both articles merged. --2003:C1:4BE1:1401:ECB3:CAE:2655:B0C7 (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I second this. I'm here right now, because its causing confusion on some reddit post as we speak. It really should be reworded as suggested. The first informative sentence of the article is just wrong. Its like saying the Reichsadler was the emblem animal of Nazi Germany. Just no.

Here should be followed the German Wikipedia example where Nazi Luftwaffe is called "Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht)", as the German present air force is still called "Luftwaffe" due to neutrally of the term meaning just "air ([Ger.] Luft) arm, ([Ger.] Waffe)" without any Nazi connotation whatsoever regardless of the ignorant misunderstanding or feelings elsewhere. It could be called also "Luftwaffe (Nazi)" better indicating the era, unless this article covers the present as well and adjusted accordingly, as it is now just misleading that is unacceptable. Sticking up to old and wrong ways is not encyclopedic. Progress stems from learning and applying.--67.87.182.58 (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Except that we are writing in English, not German. Different languages are different. Why is this so hard to understand? In English, the term Luftwaffe is virtually only used for the Nazi period. The modern organization is simply called the German air force. --Khajidha (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Mistype Florisdorf

Can anyone change Florisdorf to Floridsdorf? Mistype .. Dieter Zoubek (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luftwaffe/Archive_1&oldid=1136970319"