Talk:Myth of the clean Wehrmacht/Archive 1

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

Holocaust

I've added the Holocaust Series banner to the article. However, I'm not sure if this article belongs to it so feel free to remove it again if it is inappropriate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not including the sidebar -- while Wehrmacht enabled the Holocaust by conquering vast territories and providing logistical support to the SS, Wehrmacht was not the organisation primarily responsible for it (the SS was). The Wehrmacht committed plenty of their own war crimes, that were white washed after the war, so the article should primarily deal with those. Holocaust is one of the areas where it contributed, but not the main one. Feedback / comments? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Youre probably right. You can remove it. I certaily won't argue. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

New section: war preparations

I created a new section based on content from Operation Barbarossa. It may be too long for the scope of the article, so copyedits/condensing would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Military occupation regimes

A very interesting article! The oft-seen belief that Wehrmacht-run military occupations (in Belgium, France etc.) were less brutal than those in civil (i.e. party or collaborator-run) administrations definitely deserves a place here.

I think it's also worth flagging the existence of another article, Nazism and the Wehrmacht, which risks overlapping with the content on here. Perhaps worth considering how this can be avoided, or even if a merger is appropriate. Please note also that a large number of the template:sfn citations are "broken" and do not link back to books in the bibliography.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

The idea of a "clean Wehrmacht" is surely at odds with the Himmerod Memorandum. The Wehrmacht was rehabilitated officially.101.98.74.13 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? Obviously the Wehrmacht wasn't clean, and it committed systematic war crimes and atrocities. As explained in this article, the Himmerod Memorandum was an act of white-washing, carried out in order to "reform" West Germany and make it into an ally of the West. 190.194.223.134 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Waging aggressive war is a crime against humanity which in itself disproves the myth, never mind anything else. Grassynoel (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Regarding this edit concerning the participation of the Wehrmacht in the murder of Jews and others, please also see Marching into Darkness: The Wehrmacht and the Holocaust in Belarus. Plenty of sources exist; this is by no means controversial. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Over-capitalization

I don't think "clean Wehrmacht" should have a capital-C in mid-sentence. This isn't really a proper name, and sources don't consistently capitalize it. If I recall German rules correctly that language would capitalize it as a noun phrase, but English doesn't follow such a rule. It's just a descriptive adjective in front of a proper name. Cf. also "myth of the flat Earth", "Strawberry Quik meth myth", even real myths like the Antemurale myth; just because a proper name is present doesn't mean the entire string transmogrifies into a proper name. To the extent there's a fringe "doctrine" of a clean Wehrmacht, we still wouldn't capitalize, per MOS:DOCTCAPS. And see also special relativity, Moore's law, Ockham's razor, etc., etc.; those are much closer to proper names in the linguistics sense, and are in the philosophy sense, yet take lower-case aside from an eponym. Plus, frankly, I don't think it's cool to dignify this with "special signification" via an extraneous capital letter; the first rule of MOS:CAPS is do not misuse capitalization for any form of emphasis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with reducing capitalisation if needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll let it sit a little while in case someone has a super-mega-compelling reason for the caps.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Myth of the clean Wehrmacht. There is a clear consensus to change from the current title, and although there is disagreement about the target, Myth of the clean Wehrmacht has the most support, accurately conveys what the article is about, and avoids unnecessary formatting and capitalization. bd2412 T 01:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Clean Wehrmacht → Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht – Article titles reflect what the articles are about. Here the title suggests that we're writing about a phenomenon ("cleanliness of the Wehrmacht"), when we're actually writing about the myth of the phenomenon. We ought, then, to use the correct classifier, just as we do with "Moon landing conspiracy theories" and "Holocaust denial" (though the latter should more appropriately be called "denialism"). Using the existing name without a classifier suggests the phenomenon was real rather than mythical, which is inappropriate for a subject of this gravity and contention. If this was listed as one myth of many, then we could've used it without a classifier, but as it is rarely the case (see this change for typical usage), we ought to clarify from the get-go what it is and what it isn't. François Robere (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I support the change to Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht . Jack90s15 (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support In ictu oculi (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Although "Clean Wehrmacht myth" sounds better to me. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to "clean" Wehrmacht per WP:COMMONNAME - Took a look at how about two dozen sources refer to this, and this is how the concept is more consistently described. I believe that use of the word "myth" definitely introduces a strong POV to one side, whereas the current title may only slightly imply a POV to the other side, but the use of "clean" in quotes may balance the two and is strongly COMMONNAME. Some sources do use "myth of the 'clean' Wehrmacht", but just as common is the phrase "legend of the 'clean' Wehrmacht" - I think any specific use as a wikilink should follow the sources, and not be locked into the title. Also, "clean" is almost always in lowercase and presented in quotes, so François Robere's suggested title is flawed in that way (if you go that route, it should be myth of the "clean" Wehrmacht). In principle, also, the word myth has a specific meaning, and in this usage is quite hyperbolic - it should be used with care and with associated sources, not in a title like this. -- Netoholic @ 19:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to "clean" Wehrmacht per the argumentation of Netoholic.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC))
    • No, sorry this new suggestion is not a good move. We're trying to title an article per WP:CRITERIA not just reproduce how mentions occur in running text. Either as proposed or Clean Wehrmacht myth would be fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
      • This suggestion is perfectly fine. WP:TITLEFORMAT says titles are written in sentence case, and this is WP:CONSISTENT with other articles like "Polish death camp" controversy and "false positives" scandal. -- Netoholic @ 08:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm okay with either mine or RaiderAspect's suggestion, with or without quotation marks, and with standard capitalization. Netoholic's suggestion that the classifier "myth" introduces an undue POV to the article is wrong, as there are no competing POVs - it simply describes the case. We ought to be clear in naming, so as not to promote the myth by virtue of ambiguity; cf. Rommel myth, 9/11 conspiracy theories, which in a POV- and RS-free world would've been named Rommel's public image and 9/11 alternative explanations. François Robere (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, per nomination. The original proposal, Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, sounds best to me. The word "myth" is not POV when the preponderance of sources describe the notion of the Wehrmacht being "clean" as a myth or a legend. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: should be Myth of the clean Wehrmacht (without the capital C in "clean"). I oppose the "scare" quotes, as per below. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 15 June 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Attribution notice

I'm going to be copying information from Franz Halder to this page. Myself and @K.e.coffman: wrote 100% of the material to be copied and have access to all of the sources used. The attribution, the old ID, of the Franz Halder page and this talk page will be noted in the edit summary when it is done. The content is distinct and pertinent to both pages. Szzuk (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Soviet views on the Wehrmacht?

Does anyone have a good source on what the Soviets thought of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front? Szzuk (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is more or less covered. Szzuk (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Italian collaboration?

I've just added content which says the Italians refused to help in the persecution of the Jews. But the Collaboration section says this is a myth. I'm conflicted now. Opinions? Szzuk (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to delete this section as WP:Out of scope. The article needs to discuss Germany. Theoretically we could include numerous war time myths from Britain, France etc. I don't think the Waffen SS section is a contemporary parallel either, they are inextricably linked to the Wehrmacht. So I will integrate that into the article somewhere else. Szzuk (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I Support that Change I think we should remove the SS part, and just put a hyperlink in the see also part of the page to the waffen-ss page.so that way the Paige is primarily focusing on the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. we could leave the mention of it in the opening and also hyperlink to the lobbying group of the waffen-ss in the see also to.:Jack90s15|Jack90s15]] (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I had thought it was a good idea to keep the waffen ss section, but now i'm thinking it should be deleted too. They are different myths. Szzuk (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
OK that is done. Szzuk (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I will do the hyper link for the SS lobby groupJack90s15 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we need a separate article about the myth of the clean Italians? Certainly seems to be well sourced, from what has been said. MPS1992 (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Their is enough material for Myth of the clean Waffen-SS if it doesn't already exist. Szzuk (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I also agree that there needs to be an article on Italian war crimes. In post-war Italy, the myth that the Italians were "good guys" (Italiani brava gente), especially when compared to the Germans, has been a national credo. I have some Italian sources on their occupation in the Balkans that treat the subject more critically, but even they mostly focus on the events of 1943 and the Germans turning on them. Constantine ✍ 08:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
And by googling brava gente I just ssaw that the German wiki already has an article: de:Brava-Gente-Mythos. Constantine ✍ 08:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional source

I am far from being an expert on this subject, but there is a source which is crucial (and hard to disprove even by the most ardent Wehrmacht apologists) to this subject: the protocols of the discussions between the captured German officers held at Trent Park and published by Söntke Neitzel in Abgehört (English edition Tapping Hitler's Generals). It reveals not only the participation of Wehrmacht units, but also the full knowledge of the Wehrmacht elite about the crimes, their attitudes towards the crimes, Hitler, the SS, the Russians, etc. unfiltered and uninhibited. Constantine ✍ 20:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I have an epub copy that I've not read. I will take a look, I'm not sure how I could use it without page numbers, there may be other notes I could use as a work around. Szzuk (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I have the German version, but really not enough time to go through it again, it is huge. I can give you pages for references though if you point me to specific sections of the text. Constantine ✍ 20:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I am reading through. It is quite direct, which is refreshing. I will post anything that I'd like to add to the text here so you can drop a page number on it. Regards. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: Just ping me and I'll get to it. BTW, I also notice that the article focuses on the Eastern Front, but the Wehrmacht did many of its war crimes in the Balkans, where the SS were not as present as in Poland or the USSR. In Greece alone there are some very prominent examples such as the Massacre of Kalavryta, the Massacre of Kommeno, pretty much everything that happened on Crete, the Massacre of the Acqui Division against the Italians, or the Kragujevac massacre in Yugoslavia, these were all done by regular, and even elite, Wehrmacht troops. I still remember the incredulous reaction of the Greeks to the Germans' "shocked" reaction to the Wehrmahtsausstellung in the late 1990s. I was going to the German School of Athens at the time, and when the exhibition came there as well, even the most history-ignorant among us couldn't believe that it was news to the Germans that the regular army was involved in Nazi war crimes. Constantine ✍ 20:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I will see what I can do. I will also ping; @K.e.coffman: to see if he can add some structure to the article for Greece, the Balkans etc. as noted above? I just need the structure of the article, preferably with some sources and I can copyedit/fill the rest. Szzuk (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I can probably help with this, but only come September. Constantine ✍ 21:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I read tapping the generals. The insight I gained was second to none. The problem is that some of it is WP:Primary and all of it is close to source. As the book is written by a reputable author any of it could be included in the article regardless. It is just much more difficult to include and beyond my capabilities, even with your assistance. Szzuk (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Does the book mention the myth of the clean wehrmacht? I checked my copy of Soldaten by Neitzel (based on similar material but down to lower ranks). Myth of the clean wehrmacht / Clean wehrmacht was not included in the index. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: no, as it deals in a wartime context. But there are hints of what is to come: General der Kavallerie Edwin von Rothkirch states (p. 59): "In everything I say, I have decided to present things in such a manner, as to clear the officer corps. Ruthlessly so! The others (the SS) they don't take any consideration towards us either."
@Szzuk: Yes, of course that is primary material. But at least Neitzel's summary in the front can be used as a secondary source, concerning the widespread knowledge of crimes (even if only at the level of hearsay), the pervasiveness of anti-Semitic thought and vocabulary, and the complicity even among some of the more critical generals (von Thoma or von Choltitz) with war crimes such as the commissar order and the executions of Jews in the Soviet Union. Constantine ✍ 08:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
There was a significant hardening of sentiment against the generals since about 2005. I just checked to see if 2 of my sources were going to mention the tappings but they didn't. I think it should be in the article bibliogprahy as a source so I will see what I can find. I will have another look at some more sources. Szzuk (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I found a quote about prisoners of war. It was document number 103, p.109 of Neitze I think? Szzuk (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Need more pictures

I think the article needs more pictures. Generally articles can have one per sub section and this should relate to the material discussed in that sub section. Any ideas where to get more pics? Szzuk (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Szzuk: what are some pictures do you think we may need? for the page they have some on the wiki commonsJack90s15 (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, something that illustrates the text, like the trial of Manstein, or something from the US Army Historical Division, or something to do with the Himmerod memorandum. I've looked but not found anything, that for example, links the himmerod memorandum to the myth of the clean wehrmacht. I could get a picture of the place himmerod but its uninteresting. Szzuk (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: what about a picture of Franz-Halder for the page. I can put it in just want to know the best place to put it so it does not collapse the section since he mentioned a couple times on the page.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Franz-Halder.jpg

In this picture he's a prosecution witness, so he might be helping the allies to make himself look good. If he was on trial for his crimes that would be ideal. Does anyone know why he was in the witness box? Szzuk (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: you are right Just looked it up it was him trying to make him self look good.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
He was lying, so maybe I could find a reference that says he was committing perjury. I will look. Szzuk (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: you are right Just looked it up it was him trying to make him self look good
@Szzuk: or what about a picture of some one who was Convicted https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Walter-Warlimont.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rudolf_Lehmann_1947.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Command_Trial#Defendants_and_judgements
Then under the picture put,
Some officers were charged at the high command trial but others were not like Franz-Halder
Something like that what do you think?Jack90s15 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

West German public opinion

For the west West German public opinion part of the page what if we put this picture, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-34150-0001,_Bonn,_Theodor_Blank,_Bundeswehrfreiwillige.jpg

And have it say, Former Wehrmacht generals Adolf Heusinger and Hans Speidel sworn into the newly founded Bundeswehr on 12 November 1955 witch Continued the notion of a clean Wehrmacht in World War II Jack90s15 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I think the Halder and the Speidel/Hesusinger ones are good. I will need to add some text in the article from a book and adjust the caption, I will need to look for right text but I will be able to find enough. Warlimont and Lehmann aren't big enough players on the scene for them to be included. Szzuk (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The Crimes in Crimes in Poland, Serbia, Greece, USSR section could do with something, so too the criminal orders section. I'm not sure what to put in the Manstein section, maybe something relating to the crimea and the Holocaust of the Jews. I will see what else I can find. Szzuk (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Erwin Rommel

@Szzuk: I put Erwin Rommel in the West Germany part of page what do you think Since is image was used for propaganda for the myth?Jack90s15 (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think Rommel pic is fine. I will have to write something into the text because he currently isn't mentioned, but should be. Szzuk (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok @Szzuk: sounds good I am trying to figure out how to get more pics in the crime section with out it drooping in to the section below it.Jack90s15 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: I added information about German military brothels since that was a crime they took part inJack90s15 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

3 more

  • I think we need 3 more pics, one for the himmerod section, one for manstein and one for the criminal orders section. Szzuk (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk:OK I will look for some today Jack90s15 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. I found one for the himmerod section, Ike is a reasonable addition. Szzuk (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added an image to the Commissar Order section. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Szzuk: added picture for von manstein and footage from the robert h jackson center of manstein denying everything in Cort as a sourceJack90s15 (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the pics are all suitable. Szzuk (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • when I tried to sfn Cite it messed up the links to the sources @Szzuk:Jack90s15 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    I can't currently see anything wrong, maybe you fixed it. If I find it later I will change it then. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Question

@K.e.coffman: are you sure that you want to put this forward as a Good Article based on interpretation of sources such as what is said in this edit summary? "On the basis of biological conditions, it can be assumed that, statistically speaking, about every tenth sexual intercourse results in a swan. Consequently, it is assumed that about 10 million rape of German men took place on Russian soil alone" MPS1992 (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992: On page 9 it does say,

Based on biological facts can be assumed that, statistically, about one in ten sexual intercourse has a pregnancy result. Consequently, it must be assumed of about 10 million German men rape solely on Russian soil. Instead of using Google translate I converted the document into English. I don't think swans were involved, but maybe? MPS1992 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


@MPS1992: I think Google switched the world baby with swanJack90s15 (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like K.e.coffman's opinion on whether world babies being switched with swans is the sort of thing that should constitute a Wikipedia Good Article. MPS1992 (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


@MPS1992: in the source on page 9 it says pregnancy. when I translated the document https://www.onlinedoctranslator.com/translationform it gave the correct world used witch is pregnancy. which is stated in the journal and on the page. The concept is discussed further in the article Witch. MPS1992 (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


@MPS1992: in the Crimes in Poland, Serbia, Greece, USSR section it is using the world as it is in the journal (pregnancy)Jack90s15 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I accept that it is using the world as it is in the journal. MPS1992 (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Myth of the clean Wehrmacht/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 11:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: For my good friend Szzuk. Will start reviewing soon, looks a long one.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Very well written. Lead was a bit long and unfocused - see MOS:LEAD 'It gives the basics in a nutshell', 'the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs' and ' a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway'. But I found it good enough so as not to give a fail.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Well referenced by a number of reliable books
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images were used appropriately, for the most part i.e. the image of the saluting Wehrmacht soldiers was slightly irrelevant. A bit of work and it should be fine in no time.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Well written and sourced. Well done, a lot of time and effort has clearly been put into this.

General notes from reviewer

Some notes for me to look at, don't think these are my final thoughts - just some stuff to look over.

  • Date in introduction of International Military Tribunal
  • Comma 'In 1950...'
  • Wikilink for West Germany
  • The whole of Germany's rearmament or just West Germany?
  • 'Foreign public opinion must be transformed' (to what from what?)
  • Wikilink for Nazis
  • The myth began to grow - When?
  • Wikilink for 'et al'
  • 'In actuality there was no difference between the leaders of the Wehrmacht and the Nazi Party on how the war should be conducted' - I find that hard to believe. [Clarified]
  • "subhuman" - punctuation should be outside of wikilink In the lead I changed "sub-human" to "subhuman", I think that is correct
  • 'The war of annihilation threatened the Soviet state and the extermination of the civilian population' - is this sentence really needed?
  • Wikilink for 'Einsatzgruppen' in top image
  • Comma in list at start of 'Crimes in Poland, Serbia, Greece, USSR' section should be removed
  • 'The armies behaviour in Poland' - apostrophe needed?
  • ' Author Ursula Schele estimated that that up to ten million women in the Soviet Union could have been raped by the Wehrmacht and one in ten of those could have become pregnant' - what does this mean? I fixed it to acknowledge how it was from the mass rape Jack90s15 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 'History' section to be changed to 'Background'?
  • Wikilinks for 'join the European Defence Council and NATO.' I think this should be "European Defence Community or just the defence of europe. Can someone check or I will delete it.
  • 'During the war Foertsch had worked' comma needed
  • '...demands for German re-armament to begin.' should re-armament all be one word.
  • 'The myth began its formation shortly after the war at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg' - clarification needed, the war wasn't there.

Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

More comments: @Szzuk:

  • 'They blame the Soviet Union for signing a non-aggression pact with Germany' Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - is this the pact?
  • Operation Barbarossa needs wikilink
  • 'Russell said he was a hero' -> 'Russell said Manstein was a hero'?

(Note to Willbb234 and Szzuk: I have just moved the "General notes from reviewer" section from the article talk section to this review page; all review comments should be placed on this page. Also, review pages should only have a single level-2 section header, so this is now a level-3 subsection. Thanks!) —BlueMoonset (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Szzuk (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234: for that picture its showing how the high command of the Wehrmacht was rooted in NazismJack90s15 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

(
)
Neo-Nazis protest the Wehrmacht Exhibition.
Neo-Nazis protest the Wehrmacht Exhibition.
  • ... the myth of the clean Wehrmacht persisted in Germany until the 1990s when it was eroded by the Wehrmacht Exhibition (protesters pictured)? Source: Wette, Wolfram (2007). The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674025776. p. 269
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • Reviewed: This is a first-time nomination.

Improved to Good Article status by Jack90s15 (talk), Kudpung (talk) and K.e.coffman (talk). Nominated by Jack90s15 (talk) at 03:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC).

  • Comment: Wow. Tough choice between this hook (that it somehow went on that long... almost to the selfpitying movement about Dresden &c.) and how complicit the UK and US were, to facilitate having a West German force as a buffer against the USSR. Great article, although the last sentence of the lede (maybe more?) needs its grammar to be cleaned up a bit. — LlywelynII 19:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I copyedited the tail end of the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The article has been fully copy-edited by WP:GOCE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The article was promoted to GA status in time. I assume good faith on the references that I can't access. A QPQ is not needed and the image is fine. I don't see the use of shattered in the article, but I do see it in a non-cited image caption so that would need to be fixed. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman:Jack90s15 (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@SL93: what image ?Jack90s15 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The first image. It states, "Neo-Nazis protest the Wehrmacht Exhibition that shattered the myth for the German public in the 1990s." SL93 (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@SL93: I added a citation for the image. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, though now the wording is changed to eroded. So when this hook is promoted, I suggest tweaking the hook to "until the 1990s when it was eroded by the". SL93 (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@SL93: doneJack90s15Jack90s15 (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

copy editing tag?

WE got two copy edit tags I already verified the two sources on the page the other one needed clarification. @Szzuk: @K.e.coffman: Jack90s15 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I have copy edited both of those sections. Szzuk (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Line breaks around the Table of Contents

I think there's a manual of style that says don't try to manually control layout with line breaks and other "tricks". They won't render the same across devices. In any event the Wikimedia software removed the whitespace automatically in this recent edit. I'm not planning to restore the whitespace. Bri.public (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW, you can verify the automatic removal of whitespace at the end of a section by following this link. Bri.public (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
So, I do not understand why these breaks were inserted to begin with. What are you (the article author) trying to prevent? Bri is more or less correct. --Izno (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Myth of Wehrmacht still present in Germany in regards to atrocities in 1939

Might be of relevance, Suddeutsche Zeintung article

[1] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyedit & Picture formatting

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you for sharing your considerable expertise. The copyedit is excellent. I'd be grateful for your help with the picture formatting. I never see "alt=" text in the picture captions, when does the text become visible? Normally I would pick pixel width, for example, "250px", but it doesn’t always work well. Can you change this so the pictures look better on the screen? Szzuk (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, glad to be of help with the copy edit. The alt caption is for Wikipedia users who use a screen reader - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt_attribute - they are never visible under "normal" circumstances. FAC articles require them so I always add them. I increased the total width for the side-by-side pictures beside the Table of contents from 400 to 600. They are now a lot clearer. I know little about the technicalities of picture size, placement etc... and if anything needs doing I just go by trial and error. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I've started using Scribens to help me with grammar and punctuation, so mine isn't as bad as it used to be. The technicalities of pictures is difficult, I presume sooner or later someone will be able to explain things. Szzuk (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Twofingered Typist: @Szzuk: I put the Picture size down one only Because at 600 it was making the quote clump from the USHMM in to the left side of the pageJack90s15 (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I have it now at 430 now it does not make quote clump from the USHMM in to the left side of the page anything bigger doesJack90s15 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I have just been testing the upright command. It appears to be this upright =1.25 is 25% bigger and upright = 0.75 is 25% smaller. I'd suggest using the "show preview" button when testing rather than making edits. This is what I just did multiple times. Szzuk (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Also this wasn't working with the multiple images, I don't know why. Szzuk (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Anyone know how to get the upright=??? working with multiple images? Szzuk (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jacks you can change the pictures to make them smaller with upright=0.75. I'd suggest you test it yourself. Szzuk (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Szzuk: is that Better for Those pictures?Jack90s15 (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. Anyone else got an opinion? Szzuk (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
OK Good @Szzuk:Jack90s15 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Military Genocide in Africa

When considering the myth of non-involvement of the Wehrmacht in the European Genocide, we should look at what Germans and others have said about the involvement of the German army in the Herero and Namaqua Genocide from 1904 - 1915. The German army under General von Trotha acted independently of, and against the wishes of, the civil administration, including the Chancellor von Bulow, who could only protest to the Kaiser. There was no separate SS at that time. Apart from mass killings, the genocide extended to the use of death camps such as that on Shark Island, medical experimentation on prisoners, and special identification marks worn by members of stigmatised tribes. Poison gas was not yet available, but camp death rates exceeded 90%. Few of the lower ranks involved in South West Africa are likely to have still been in the military in the 1940s, but some senior officers, who served longer, may have been. Someone with access to German-language sources could ascertain whether this campaign was represented in the battle honours of any regiments. NRPanikker (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. They should be hunted down and exposed. The Britisher behavior in the same era should be exposed too, for example Winston Churchill about how it was best to control tribal areas by using poison gas delivered from aircraft.
Do the sources suggest that activities such as the experimentation on prisoners, and the genocidal slaughter of innocents, were carried out in the early part of the 20th century even in the absence of Nazi rule? Was it generally considered a justifiable German or Prussian activity?
I agree that the battle honours of regiments would be very interesting. MPS1992 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
As we are concerned here with the role of the German army, the status of the death camp doctors is relevant. I am not certain whether the German Medical Corps was part of the army or some other Imperial service: their doctors did not have military ranks at that time. The senior one at Shark Island Concentration Camp, Dr Hugo Bofinger, had trained in bacteriology, but some of his research on prisoners involved injecting them with arsenic and opium as possible treatments for scurvy, when the administration denied them adequate diet. Dr Eugen Fischer, a physical anthropologist as well as a physician, is famous for having collected over 300 skulls and sending them, along with body parts and complete corpses of children back to Germany. His studies of Afro-Germans' bodies led to Germany's laws against intermarriage. His works were read by Hitler and contributed to Mein Kampf and the Nuremberg laws. Fischer became head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Heredity and Eugenics and Hitler made him Rector of the University of Berlin. Fischer's interest in twin studies was taken up by his successor, Dr Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer and his protégé Dr Josef Mengele (a captain in the SS) who also experimented on twins. NRPanikker (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Regarding regular soldiers, Franz Epp would have taken a direct part in the hunting and killing of Africans as a lieutenant and captain. He was knighted and became Franz Ritter von Epp by the end of WWI and was a full general before WWII, but by then he was a political leader in Bavaria and probably no more complicit in genocide than any other senior Nazi. NRPanikker (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Grammar/Spelling

In the last paragraph - "Finally, in his last book, he points out how the "German army's moral failure and military failure" were always reinforcing each other, whether in the good days after victory over France, or in the days of defect and destruction." - the grammar and spelling is atrocious. Can someone clean it up?  Done I've cleaned some up. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The article still has an 'English as a second language' tone to it, and would benefit from further copyediting. I am reluctant to do this because I am largely unfamiliar with the subject matter. --Ef80 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Ef80, what do you mean specifically by [having] English as a second language' tone to it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
It is simply that some of the grammar and phrasing reads oddly to a native English speaker, though it's not actually incorrect. This isn't unusual in the case of articles which are effectively translations. I am not suggesting that the translation is poor, only that it could be more idiomatic. --Ef80 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there a problem at all? Most readers of English nowadays have it as a second language, and it seems EFL users from different backgrounds understand each other better than they do native speakers. Rewriting the article as if it were spoken by a cockney or a yankee would reduce its intelligibility. NRPanikker (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The article now reads much better following copyediting in September by several editors - thanks for your work. NRPanikker, there is a difference between the natural phrasing of a language and slang or dialect. --Ef80 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Liddell Hart a "Nazi apologist"?

I am afraid I must object to Sir Basil Liddell Hart being labelled as a "Nazi apologist". He may or he may not have exaggerated Rommel's merits, he may have "contributed to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht", but a "Nazi apologist" is someone who tries to defend or support Nazi beliefs - which is still a crime in many countries. Like libel, you see. 95.246.143.60 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "Wehrmacht apologist" as it better reflects the source provided. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The Wehrmacht apologist is probably better, but Liddell Hart never condemned the Holocaust, indeed in all his voluminous writings on the Second World War, he never mentioned the subject once. It is not a crime to defend National Socialism in Great Britain, which is how a Mr. David Irving has made a flourishing career. Contrary to what many seem to think, it was Miss Deborah Lipstadt who was on trial in 2000, not Mr. Irving. Leaving all that aside, I think somebody was thinking of Liddell Hart's friend General J.F.C. Fuller, who was indeed a Nazi apologist. Fuller was a member of the British Union of Fascists, so with him, it is quite proper to call him a fascist historian. Also note he was the military correspondent for the Daily Mail newspaper (which represents the right-wing of the Conservative Party), and in his coverage of the Italo-Ethiopian war and the Spanish Civil War had a very pronounced bias for fascist causes. Fuller was invited to attend Hitler's 50th birthday on 20th of April 1939, and he was glad to accept that offer. The very fact that such an invitation was extended to him shows that Hitler thought well of him, and that Fuller was happy to take it up shows that he equally thought well of Hitler. Indeed, this article could probably use a bit more about Fuller, who together with Liddell Hart was the most influential military historian in the English-speaking world from the 1920s to 1960s. Fuller in his 1961 book The Reformation of War actually said quite openly what various Wehrmacht generals only hint at in their memoirs, namely that Operation Barbarossa was a glorious crusade to save the West from Communism that sadly failed. Given these beliefs, needless to say Fuller was not going to discuss the genocidal aspects of Operation Barbarossa. And since Fuller was one of the most influential military historians of all time, and he is still spoke of very well by military historians even today, his role in creating this myth should not be underrated.--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Query regarding origins of phrase

Does anyone know who first used the actual phrase 'myth of the clean Wehrmacht'? Lismore287 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Just read that section, I think his point stands?

I don't really see any whataboutism in his post. That said he didn't conduct himself in the best way. Sure, he mentioned U.S war crimes etc. but it's a good comparison because the question is still unanswered: why does this article exist and who is claiming this so-called myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 246.4.220.1 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Someone should at least answer his question. Like he said I expect a single sentence only too but I think it's good for discussion.

Agree, seems like a WP:AGF violation. 216.9.110.7 (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

fictitious notion

Is it really fictitious? I mean, the word means "not real or true, being imaginary or having been fabricated." One could read this as a claim that this myth is not real and exists only in some fictional book or such. I think the word fictitious is potentially misleading and confusing here, and I'd suggest its removal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's fictitious, in that it was a fabricated concept designed to draw blame away from the Wehrmacht. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "shortening the lead a bit". --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarity needed, confusing article

Trolling a Good article with Whataboutism
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Even the title is confusing. "The myth of the clean Wehrmacht". Firstly, what is the myth being claimed? Is the claim that they were 100% clean? 99.99% clean? 99% clean? 95% clean? 90% clean? 80% clean? Can you even quantify something such as this in percentages? Is it fair to treat it so binarily?

Is the claim that they were simply not raping anyone? If so, is the claim for that 100%? What about the Holocaust? Is the claim that they did not help at all? If so, was this official Wehrmacht policy? I see no sources confirming this.

I just don't think that a single person on earth would say "No, not a single Wehrmacht soldier raped anyone"... Which leads me to my next point.

Secondly, who is claiming this myth? This ties in with the first problem I see with this article. It just seems like a strawman that was built around some arbitrary entity claiming the Wehrmacht was 100% clean. Should I go make an article "Myth of the clean U.S. Armed Forces"?

Lastly, why is it being referred to as a myth?

"A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. - definition for a myth

Who is telling the story (see point two) and why is it a "story" at all? Why is it not just a lie? We do not see "War crimes of the U.S." titled "myth" as I mentioned.

Anyway I expect only a few words reply at most because I understand we have to err on the side of political correctness. But as a hobbyist historian it is rather ignoble. 2601:645:C000:AE10:74BD:5C29:875A:5F53 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a great example of Nazi sympathizers trying to revise history. Yes, all Germans were Nazis. Get over it. This is accepted consensus by historians. All Germans knew about, and aided the Holocaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.228.253 (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not troll into a section that has been already blanked because of trolling...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC))

Various details that may not be correct

In this sentence - "In Britain, the Royal Marine General Maurice Hankey..." it seems that Maurice Hankey, 1st Baron Hankey was a general, but I can not find any source for that. Could it be that it is mixed up with him being Paymaster General from 1941 to 1942? Ulflarsen (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This sentence is strange: "The Historikerstreit contributed any new research, but the efforts of the "revisionist" conservative historians such as Ernst Nolte and Andreas Hillgruber were marked by an angry nationalist tone". I assume that it should be read at follows: "The Historikerstreit did not contribute any new research..." - but good if this could be validated by anyone (Szzuk, K.e.coffman) into this topic. Ulflarsen (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

NATO role in the context of the Cold War

There's an elephant in the room: NATO. It is barely named in the article, though implied by the context. It should be clarealy stated and clarified the role of the Atlantic Alliance in furthering the myth of the Clean Wehrmacht for its own aims, and how much of its part was played by the United States as the absolute hegemon of the alliance. It would also be useful to compare how the myth was also repurposed EAST of the Iron Curtain, with the rebuilding, in an ostensibily "Communist" state (!), of directly Prussian-looking East German military, the creation of an entire "party" for former Nazis, etc. It seems that the power and decisiveness of Germany's rightwing shift in the early Thirties was such that no one, not even Stalina nd his cronies, could ignore it.

Basil II (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The role of at least the US and UK is discussed in Start of the myth". NATO does not have an identified role in the current version. Are there reliable sources that discuss actions taken by the NATO organization itself? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Equivalency

What is the Japanese equivalent? 41.58.207.194 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The closest analogue would be Nippon Kaigi, a Japanese group that attempts to whitewash the atrocities committed by the Japanese military during WW2. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht/Archive_1&oldid=1114074287"