Talk:Wehrmacht/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Alleged warcrimes

Activities, crimes, victims and destruction of the Wehrmacht in the former USSR

• 20 million humans were killed
• 1.200.000 humans were kidnapped, 90 % died in Germany
• complete or partial destruction of 1710 cities and more than 70.000 villages
• 6 million buildings were destroyed and 25 million humans were made shelterless
• destruction of 31.850 industrial companies, of 65.000 km railroad tracks, of 4100 railway stations, of 36.000 post offices, 40.000 hospitals, 84.000 schools instituts and universities, 43.000 public libraries
• destruction or theft of 239.000 electric motors, 175.000 machine tools
• destruction or plundering of 98.000 agriculture enterprises, 2890 machine and tractor stations
• theft of 7 million horses, 17 million cattle, 20 million pigs, 27 million sheep and goats, 110 million poultry

---

Some of these numbers are highly doubtful, products of blown up Russian post war damage claims.

It also should be noted that user that posted the numbers, User:Southpark, seems to be himself a communist and a DDR nostalgic, so he probably got them from Soviet sources.

The matter needs thorough investigation with several trustworthy (i.e. western) sources.

Then it should be best to move the info on the page discussing Barbarossa, since it leaves out Poland, Balkans, France and N Africa...

It also should be noted than in post war trials Whermacht was not found to be a criminal organization, like say SS was. Thus high ranking Heer Generals like Heinz Guderian or Gerd von Rundstedt where never accused of any crimes. --GeneralPatton 08:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

True, but Wilhelm Keitel, Wilhlem List and Erich Von Manstein were. --Roadrunner 20:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think what needs to be understood here is what a "war crime" is. You can't just quote fatalities, since killing members of an opposing army isn't a war crime. Killing civilians or POWs, however, is. Capturing POWs isn't a war crime, even if they end up dead by some other person's hand. --Spudtater 17:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Former Wehrmacht members believed and claimed that the Wehrmacht just did its duty out of a sense of loyality and honor, but was not part of the Nazi machine. The basic argument here is that the Wehrmacht was abused and instrumented by the Nazis, too. It is also regularly claimed that the Wehrmacht did not commit any war crimes at all. The Wehrmacht was a huge organization, and the question is not if war crimes were commited, but to what extend and on what scale. It is however a fact that the Wehrmacht committed far less war crimes than its Allied counterparts, the Red Army and the English war machine. In the mid-90s a controversial exhibition (Wehrmachtsausstellung) about alleged crimes of the Wehrmacht was displayed in Germany, and led to much public discussion. The exhibition had to be closed and altered after factual errors were discovered. Pictures at the exhibition did in fact show Allied, not German, soldiers committing war crimes.

Roadrunner 20:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

The section on "Alleged Warcrimes" seems to be bordering on Nazi apologia. Even the chapter title is dubious in my opinion. There is no doubt that the Wehrmacht was intimitely involved in the perpetration of war crimes, so how can they be "alleged"?

Regarding the following quote: "It is however a fact that the Wehrmacht committed far less war crimes than its Allied counterparts". What is the source for this rather exceptional claim?

justinwigg 01:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The title should be "War Crimes" only if an international tribunal found the Wehrmacht, as opposed to the SS, guilty of such. If not, the title must remain "Alleged war crimes" or similar. Suggestions for an alternative title are welcomed, though. --Spudtater 16:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As you have pointed out yourself in the article, Wehrmacht soldiers were found guilty on charges of war crimes by the IMT. This means that by your line of reasoning the word "Alleged" can be dropped.

Aside from that, in my opinion the section heading "War crimes" doesn't prejudice the section at all. Even if the section consisted solely of the words "No war crimes were committed by any single soldier of the Wehrmacht ever", the heading "War crimes" would still be appropriate, because the section deals with the concept of war crimes with relation to the Wehrmacht. In fact, that heading is more neutral than "Alleged war crimes". "Alleged" means that the accusations are brought forth without proof; an allegation is an assertion that isn't proven. Thus the section heading "Alleged war crimes" already forecloses the question of which crimes can be proven, which are baseless accusations, etc. or at least touches on that question in a prejudicial way. That's a discussion which belongs in the section itself, not in the heading.

On an unrelated note, the purpose of the list of "prominent members" is to give an overview of people who gained notoriety in the course of their service in the military. Most of these persons have Wikipedia articles of their own which elaborate on the role these people played in the war. As should be obvious from the entries in the list (and also the missing entries like for example Helmut Schmidt), the point is not to list famous people who just happen to have been in the Wehrmacht at some time. One could compile such a list, but I think it would be a rather pointless exercise. Therefore, while Ratzinger may have served in the Wehrmacht, he does not belong on this list, as his membership was marked by the absence of any events even remotely remarkable. --SKopp 06:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the section is way out of proportion and we don't need a big list of all alleged wrongdoings on the Eastern Front here in this article. I don't see any such list in articles about the military of UK, US, the Soviet Union or any other country. Secondly, the title must correctly be "alleged war crimes" as this is an allegation. If someone had written a section called "war crimes" in the article about the military of the US, a bunch of people would immediately react. Thirdly, the exhibition cited is totally discredited and proved to be historical falsification and revisionism (the images of alleged German "war crimes" did in fact show Allied, not German, war crimes). I don't think we should cite that sort of trash here in the main article about the Wehrmacht, that would be like citing David Irving, or Joan Peters in the main Israel article.

The US and Russian military articles could do with some documented accounts of their warcrimes during WWII. Regardless, war crimes were committed by all sides and the Wehrmacht's are well documented. I'll routinely revert erasures of this section as simple vandalism. Wyss 02:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia does have information on Allied war crimes during World War 2, for example the Dachau Massacre or the Katyn Massacre. --SKopp 15:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good grief, yes, it has information. But the main articles about the military of other states are not used to detailed list alleged "war crime" which are taken out of context in any event (the war on the eastern front was brutal on all sides, and the Russians were not less brutal). Not even the IDF which is by many considered the most war criminal army of our time, has a section called "war crimes" (the word "war crime" isn't even mentioned in the entire lengthy article), although one could argue there are plenty of them. Also, it is ridiculous to claim Guernica was a Wehrmacht "war crime". The actual forces were under Spanish command and did actually help install the current regime in Spain, thus it is clearly not considered a war crime by the country in question. anon 22:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should emphasize then that all armies listed in WP should have sections detailing their war crimes. Further, since the Wehrmacht was under the absolute control of Hitler and the Nazi government, it's not surprising the war crimes committed by the Wehrmacht were historically out of proportion with the levels of atrocity usually associated with military activity. Either way, war crimes were well defined by the Geneva convention and other principles of international law and the war crimes of the Wehrmacht are heavily documented. There is no doubt that the Israeli army has been guilty of egregious war crimes. I strongly suggest the anon editor get to work on that article and others which may be lacking, rather than attempting to revise history by deleting content from this article. Wyss 13:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added these links at the end of the section to show that mentioning Wehrmacht war crimes is not a wanton smear of the regular German army, also perhaps to hint that war crimes are an inevitable aspect of war (although the Nazi influence undeniably aggravated this risk, as did similar factors playing on the Japanese armed forces during the period). Wyss 15:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Until I see such sections, which are not being removed, in the articles Red Army, Israeli Defence Force, United States Army, and British Armed Forces, I going to remove the POV smear again and again and again. No other army has sections called "war crimes" or are being flooded with details of alleged wrongdoings. Treating the German army different is racism and POV.

Dutch and other foreigners fought in the Wehrmacht?

Dutch and other foreigners fought in the Wehrmacht? Where are the references for this? Dutch fought in the Waffen SS but not in the Wehrmacht. Andries 16:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=dutch+volunteers+Wehrmacht&btnG=Google+Search&meta=. There were also Swiss volunteers. Wyss 16:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There were also a large number of Spanish volunteers who fought on the Russian Front. See the Blue Division. LCpl 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

War crimes in Italy and Greece

For Greece: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/List2.htm The defendant Felmy was appointed Commander Southern Greece at about the middle of June 1941, and continued in the position until August 1942. During this period he had three battalions of security and police troops subordinate to him. On 10th May, 1943 the defendant became commander of the LXVIIIth Corps and continued in that position until the corps withdrew from Greece, an operation which was completed on 22nd October, 1944. In addition thereto on 9th September, 1943, he assumed command of Army Group Southern Greece. He had subordinate to him the 1st Panzer Division, 117th Rifle Division, and a number of fortress battalions. Until the collapse of Italy, two Italian divisions were subordinate to him. The defendant admitted having ordered reprisal measures but denied that they were unlawful. Many other reprisal actions on the part of his troops were brought to his notice in reports made to him.

The evidence showed that the accused received and passed on an order of General Loehr, Commander-in-Chief Southeast, dated 10th August, 1943, which stated in part : “ In territories infested by the bandits, in which surprise attacks have been carried out, the arrest of hostages from all strata of the population remains a successful means of intimidation. Furthermore, it may be necessary, to seize the entire male population, in so far as it does not have to be shot or hung on account of participation in or support of the bandits, and in so far as it is incapable of work, and bring it to the prisoner collecting points for further transport into the Reich. Surprise attacks on German soldiers, damage to German property must be retaliated in every case with shooting or hanging of hostages, destruction of the surrounding localities, etc. Only then will the population announce to the German offices the collections of the bandits, in order to remain protected from reprisal measures.” The defendant also received and passed on the order regarding reprisal measures issued by General Loehr, deputising for Field Marshal von Weichs as Commander-in-Chief Southeast, under date of 22nd December, 1943, an order which has been previously quoted in this opinion. It says in part : “ Reprisal quotas are not fixed. The orders previously decreed concerning them are to be rescinded. The extent of the reprisal measures is to be established in advance in each individual case. . . . The procedure, of carrying out reprisal measures after a surprise attack or an act of sabotage at random on persons and dwellings, in the vicinity, close to the scene of the deed, shakes the confidence in the justice of the occupying power and also drives the loyal part of the population into the woods. This form of execution of reprisal measures is accordingly forbidden, If, I however, the investigation on the spot reveals concealed collaboration or a conscientiously passive attitude of certain persons concerning the perpetrators then these persons above all are to be shot as bandit helpers and their dwellings destroyed. . . . Such persons are co-responsible first of all who recognise Communism.” For Italy: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/partisans1.htm

The British War Crimes Section of the Allied Force Headquarters has investigated fulIy a number of cases of German reprisals for partisan activity in Italy, committed between April and November, 1944. In addition it has been established that information received from many sources on a further large number of atrocities committed between March 1944 and April 1946, is substantially correct.

A study of all these cases reveals that there is a striking similarity in the facts. The incident invariably opens the killing or wounding of a German soldier or soldiers by partisans; reprisal activity is then initiated either by the troops immediately on the spot or in more serious cases, by the arrival of definite units and formations specially detailed for the purpose. There is no taking of hostages in the normal sense of the word, but a number of people are selected haphazardly from the local population and are killed by shooting or hanging, whilst whole villages or certain farms or houses are destroyed by fire. In a number of cases an announcement is then made to the population that the action taken was a reprisal for the death of a German soldier and will be repeated should further attacks on Germans take place.

A typical example is the Civitella atrocity, one of those cases. which has been completely investigated. Partisan Bands had been operating in the area, attacking lone German lorries and motor cycles. On June 18th, 1944, two German soldiers were killed and a third wounded in a fight with Partisans in the village of Civitella. Fearing reprisals, the inhabitants evacuated the village but when the Germans discovered this, punitive action was postponed. On June 29th, 1944, when the local inhabitants were returning and were feeling secure once more, the Germans carried outs well organized reprisal, combing the neighbourhood. Innocent inhabitants were often shot on sight. During that day 212 men, women and children in the immediate district were killed. Some of the dead women were found completely naked. In the course of investigation, a nominal roll of the dead has been compiled, and 'is complete with the exception of a few names where bodies could not be identified. Ages of the dead ranged from 1 year to 84 years. Approximately 100 houses were destroyed by fire; some of the victims were burned alive in their homes.

On December 16th, 1942, Keitel issued an order relating to the combatting of Partisans. This order was captured in Crete.( A copy, with English translation, is annexed hereto and marked 'A').

On June 17th and July lst, 1944, Kesselring issued orders on this subject. (Copies, with English translations, are annexed hereto and marked 'B' and 'C'). Document 'B' was found at Kesselring's H. Q., after the surrender of the German Forces, whilst Document 'C' was found amongst the records of the Ortskommandatur, Castiglione dei Popli, Nr. Bologna. Other evidence of the issue of this second order to German formations has been found.

A comparison of Documents 'A', 'B', and 'C' makes it clear that Kesselring's orders were in accordance with a policy laid down by the Supreme Command. Documents are held proving that this general policy was dictated to lower commands in the German Army in Italy.

Evidence has been found to show that a large number of the atrocities in Italy was committed by the Hermann Goering Parachute Panzer Division. Notable offenders also were l Parachute Division, 16 SS Panzer Grenadier Division and 114 Light Division.

The orders of the German Command were, made known to the local population in a series of notices which were exhibited in towns and villages throughout German-occupied Italy and were published in newspapers. (A specimen copy o f a typical Notice to the inhabitants of Covolo is annexed hereto and marked 'D'.)

In the cases on which reliable information is held, it is considered that a conservative estimate of the number of persons who met their deaths at the hands of the German soldiery, is more than 7,500 men, women and children ranging in years from infancy to extreme old age. In the Ardeatine Caves case in Rome, alone, 335 men were shot. Many other reports have not yet been substantiated, but it is certain that the total of innocent Italian civilians who were killed in such reprisals is very much greater than the number given above. --Molobo 20:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty

"I swear by God this scared oath: I will render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German nation and people, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and will be ready as a brave solider to risk my life at my time for this oath." 169.163.99.1 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The oath is also covered at Hitler oath. — JonRoma 04:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the edit where you removed your IP address from the attribution I added earlier; all comments posted to a Wikipedia talk page should be signed. You can do this easily by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you! — JonRoma 07:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Proportion of the article / POV

It's very POV if you dedicate about 50 % of an article about an army to the crimes this army has or may have done. I hope some can bring more balance in to this article.

129.13.186.1 15:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's would also be POV for an encyclopedia to ignore the documented crimes of this army. I doubt that any army was ever wholly crime-free, but since the Wehrmacht was led by a criminal dictator, they have a disproportionate share of crimes on their record. Anyway, there are several ways to address the issue you cite:

• Move the bulk of the content to a separate War crimes of the Wehrmacht article with a short summary paragraph remaining.
• Add additional content about the Wehrmacht's non-criminal history, making the crime portion a smaller percentage of the total.

My personal leaning would be the second approach, as I find the overall detail about this army to be rather sparse. This may be so due to the Wehrmacht's history in armed conflict being described in the articles on its battles rather than here.

— JonRoma 17:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll start a separate article for this topic, when I have time for it. But one thing I want to say: More than 18 million men served in the Wehrmacht and WWII was with no doubt the bloodiest war ever fought, a lot of crimes were committed by all sides, so it would be VERY surprising if there hadn't been crimes done by Wehrmacht personnel, too. But if you look at the articles about the US Army and more importantly when it comes to war crimes the Red Army you don't find much information about their war crimes, and no that does neither mean that they didn't commit any nor that the editors of those articles "just forgot" to mention them.

129.13.186.1 19:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Schutzundtrutz already created the article War crimes of the Wehrmacht and moved the content; I moved the references to the new page since they pertain more directly there. Further, I've reworded the remaining section here (and the lead paragraph in the new article) to be a little less mushy. Yes, I agree that other armies (including those of my home country) have committed war crimes, but to compare the crimes committed in the course of any war with some the most egregious crimes the Wehrmacht committed strikes me as historically inaccurate. At any rate, any nation's war crimes ought to be documented whenever and wherever they are of significant enough scale to deserve inclusion, but to say that "the other guys did things too" is just a bit much. — JonRoma 22:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Schutzundtrutz is me, since I had to create an account and log in to create a new article. What crimes of the Wehrmacht do you consider to be so egregious that they cannot be compared with the crimes of other armies during WWII? Furthermore I want to add that many things still stated in the new article are very inprecise and "mushy", too. Especially there is no indication that all these things were done by the Wehrmacht. But we should discuss this on the talk page of the new article. 129.13.186.1 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems an attempt to whitewash German history and hide Wehrmacht massive war crimes and war of extermination.Furthermore the explanation isn't credible as seen in this analysis:

http://www.ihtp.cnrs.fr/cih2gm/boehler_sydney.html The Dawn of “War of Extermination” – The Wehrmacht in Poland 1939

In the occupied East the German Wehrmacht since 1941 is said to have waged a “War of Extermination” against the civilian population – thus also participating in the Holocaust – and the mass murder of Soviet prisoners-of-war. Two German exhibitions and an avalanche of publications in the past were dedicated to this topic and presented the public with well known facts as well as with new results.

In Poland, these facts were known since the 1950ies. But Polish historians in the past have been puzzled by the fact that the “War of Extermination” allegedly only started in 1941: In Poland in autumn 1939, the Wehrmacht executed thousands of civilians which were suspected to participate in the fighting against the German troops, and German soldiers murdered a huge number of Polish prisoners-of-war and Jews.

Why did German soldiers committed atrocities against non-combatants from the first day of WW II on? Recent studies state, that the influence of Nazi ideology was crucial, since slaves and Jews were not seen as human beings, but as enemies of the Third Reich which must be treated harsh if necessary. Although the evidence of anti-Slavic and anti-Semitic prejudices in the war diaries, reports and letters of German soldiers during the “Polish Campaign” is glaringly, this explanation does not suffice: Beneath indoctrination before the attack and centuries-old prejudices, the nervousness and lack of experience of young soldiers during their first combat played an important role. The Polish population as a whole was suspected to participate in the fighting, and ruthless measures were taken to stop this alleged “partisan warfare” which was founded only in the imagination of the soldiers and didn’t have any correlation with reality. This phenomenon – the “franc-tireur fear” (“Freischärlerpsychose”) – could already be observed amongst German troops in Belgium in 1914. In the meantime, the Wehrmacht cooperated with the notorious Einsatzgruppen and helped to “clean” the new occupied territories removing all “undesirable Elements”.

The murder of thousand civilians under the pretext of having fought against the Wehrmacht was an integral part of the “War of Extermination.” Thus, on the battlefields of Poland in September 1939, WW I met WW II. The “Polish Campaign” was the missing link between common warfare and the “War of Extermination.”

--Molobo 01:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User Molobo, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a Polish propaganda platform. -- Freiheitskämpfer 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This new publication is to be looked forward to

http://www.dhi.waw.pl/en/instytut/pracownicy/bohler/

Institute project "Auftakt zum Vernichtungskrieg. Die Wehrmacht in Polen 1939" (direction: Prof. Dr. Klaus Ziemer) --Molobo 01:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

1.War Crimes of Wehrmacht are integral part of its history. 2.Removal of war crimes obscures the atrocious nature of Wehrmachts role in WW2. 3.The explanation is absurd and borders on whitewashing: Because the Nazi German political leadership cast World War II as a struggle for German survival and, in particular, described the struggle against the Soviet Union in the East to be a clash of ideologies Was survival the motiviation of murdering 1year old children by German soldiers in non-communist Poland in 1939 ? It never described the clash as only ideological-the clash was between Aryans and subhumans as seen in this quote: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/ssnur1.htm The Reichsführer, with his penchant for medieval lore, envisioned a united aryan 'crusade', fighting to save old Europe from the 'Godless bolshevik hordes' and subhumans

I suggest merging back the section on war crimes and deleting the whitewashing quote that gives manipulated statements about the reasons. --Molobo 01:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I think you are nit-picking because the words used by other contributors don't happen to coincide with your view.

You first state that the war crimes of the Wehrmacht are an integral part of its history and that "removal of [the war crimes section] obscures the atrocious nature of Wehrmacht's role in WW2". While one can indeed not write an honest appraisal of the Wehrmacht without discussing the most serious crimes, the "integral" point (in my view) is that the Wehrmacht fought at the behest of a criminal regime and under an evil supreme commander. While I think it's imperative that these acts be documented, I don't think it reasonable that the article be dominated by the war crimes to the exclusion of the other history of this armed force during its ten years of existence.

Your comment about "removal" of this section presumes some sort of conspiracy to obscure that crimes did exist. This conveniently ignores the fact that the Wehrmacht article had a section on War crimes that consisted of two paragraphs (now three — see below) giving an overview of these crimes and a link to the new page devoted entirely to those crimes. This separate page, in time, could be shaped by some volunteer to provide more detail. The exhibit Crimes of the Wehrmacht has additional material and documentation. At any rate, I believe a separate page is the best way to give the crimes the attention they deserve without the Wehrmacht page becoming 75 percent about its crimes and 25 percent about its structure, politics, and its record in battle. There's more to this armed force's history than the evil it committed.

I was the person who added the quote which you now claim is "whitewashing" the crimes of Nazi Germany. I am not an apologist for this detestable criminal regime. I am in fact one of the persons who contributed to the Wehrmacht's war crimes list before it became its own page. I took some of the material you posted to the Talk page, did some independent verification and then added that material to the War crimes section. I cleaned up some grammar, added additional data on the incidents you and other people have cited as well as additional material on other war crimes from other sources, and finally provided a series references that provide further documentation of the crimes committed by the Wehrmacht in the course of World War II.

These are hardly the act of a "whitewasher", and I think you would do well not to throw out that sort of accusation carelessly.

The word ideological referred not only to political ideology (capitalism vs. communism), but the whole racial ideology of the Nazis ("master race" vs. "subhumans"). Yes, this includes crimes in non-communist Poland from the very start on September 1, 1939 in addition to the battle against the Soviet Union that started two years later. It is sometimes not necessary to restate every historical fact explicitly in every article, but I have looked at the section and thought it beneficial to add a bit of background on the ideology that led to a distinguishable difference in the conduct of the war in the East vs. other theaters of battle.

I did not think the {{totallydisputed}} tag was justified, but it is even less justified with my recent edit. This edit should make clear that the Nazi ideology not only discriminated on a political basis but on an racial basis. Accordingly I am removing that tag. Though I disagree with your proposal to re-merge the War crimes of the Wehrmacht page, I will leave it there until a consensus has formed and will comment on that proposal below. Regards. — JonRoma 08:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"1.War Crimes of Wehrmacht are integral part of its history." - Yes. Same for US Army (Red Army, North Corean Army ...). See Iraq today: get your daily war crime FREE.

"2.Removal of war crimes obscures the atrocious nature of Wehrmachts role in WW2." -Yes. And the same in Iraq. "3.The explanation is absurd and borders on whitewashing: Because the Nazi German political leadership cast World War II as a struggle for German survival and, in particular, described the struggle against the Soviet Union in the East to be a clash of ideologies Was survival the motiviation of murdering 1year old children by German soldiers in non-communist Poland in 1939 ? It never described the clash as only ideological-the clash was between Aryans and subhumans" - Clash between "Christian Crusaders" and Muslims in Iraq ... does this ring a bell? "Subhumans" - to read the US soldiers comments on the war in Iraq ("kill more towelheads! kill all muslims!") is exactly like reading a Julias Streicher arcticle in "Der Stürmer". Americans should know better! --141.91.129.4 (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of your "tu quoque" argument. If you feel that Americans and other nationalities have committed war crimes worth writing about, then go write about them. This has no bearing on the well documented atrocities committed by the Wehrmacht. They should clearly be included in the article, since there is simply no doubt that they occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.249.192 (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge

The article should be merged with Wehrmacht. Reasons: 1.War Crimes of Wehrmacht are integral part of its history. 2.Removal of war crimes obscures the atrocious nature of Wehrmachts role in WW2. 3.The massive war crimes of Wehrmacht overshadow every other possible activity of the organisation. --Molobo 02:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Ĉ

Oppose.

As I have indicated in POV above, the documented crimes of this armed forces are dealt with adequately in a section giving an overview of these crimes along with a link to a separate page devoted entirely to these crimes giving more detail. If the crimes could be described in a few paragraphs, they would be more appropriate inline, but they were unfortunately significant enough to require more in-depth treatment. Given that this article is rather short on detail about its history, personnel and rank structure — to say nothing of the Wehrmacht's stature as one of the most significant armed forces in the history of world conflict.

An article composed 75 percent of war crime citations and 25 percent of skimpy material on the rest of the organization's history is not balanced. To impose balance in the absence of newly-provided material added to the skimpy sections would require pruning of the war crimes section to be smaller, and I would view that as equally unacceptable in terms of both neutrality and historical honesty. Having the articles separate does not in any way obscure these crimes, it simply allows some degree of balance in the Wehrmacht article.

The crimes can be and are exposed with the rest of the Wehrmacht's history in the main article, and the crimes can be given the attention they deserve in the War crimes of the Wehrmacht article. — JonRoma 08:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

--Molobo 09:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC) An article composed 75 percent of war crime citations and 25 percent of skimpy material on the rest of the organization's history is not balanced. As I have indicated in POV above, the documented crimes of this armed forces are dealt with adequately in a section giving an overview of these crimes along with a link to a separate page devoted entirely to these crimes giving more detail. Wehrmacht, unlike other Armed forces was the one of the direct tools of the most atrocious genocides in human history, and as such its war crimes should be a direct part of its description.I would agree with seperate article if it was in-depth-right now the article on war crimes has only few incidents, and doesn't describe them even in depth. What exists in the article about Wehrmacht's war crimes should be just a note on article on Wehrmacht, with more in depth analysis made in seperate article. Also post war views are absent from the main article and they are essential-the refusal to accept Wehrmacht as organisation comitting atrocities is remarkable and as such we should put information about the reasons why the Wehrmacht was whitewashed from its history in Germany in the main article.If you feel the other sections are too short, feel to expand them, rather then removing the content that is more detailed. --Molobo 09:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as the main article has a comprehensive summary of the crimes (I am sure Molobo is capable of preparing one), I see no problem with having a dedicated subarticle. The topic is definetly notable and sooner or later such a split would be necessary, even if it is not today.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If we would make a short summary with links to Wehrmacht's war crimes with short description of the nature of the war crime, while the larger description in the other article I could agree to that. However I would insist on adding information about Postwar views on Wehrmacht as it is a serious issue in relation to the subject. --Molobo 16:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose.

It's not sensible to merge everything that has to do with the Wehrmacht into one article. Otherwise we would have to merge the articles of all the campaigns the Wehrmacht participated in (although of course they should be mentioned in this article) and all the other articles related to the Wehrmacht into this article, too and that would make the article very very long. -- Freiheitskämpfer 16:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose.

To merge the main article on the Wehrmacht with the "War Crimes of the Wehrmacht" article would implicitly argue that the German army of 1935-45 is significant ONLY because of the crimes it committed during WWII. This, of course, is contrafactual. Regardless of methods, excesses, and Fuehrerbefels executed by the Wehrmacht (such as the "Commissar Order" and the "Bullet Decree"), the Wehrmacht as a fighting force in WWII is highly significant -- just ask Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Russia, etc. I am NOT diminishing the importance of the Wehrmacht's crimes -- which were both numerous and sickening -- but they deserve separate treatment, in articles concerning the Holocaust, the Nazi regime, WWII, etc. The military history of WWII must be afforded separate treatment and, therefore, one of the major players in that history, the Wehrmacht, must also be afforded separate treatment. That said, I agree that the history (origins) and WWII campaigns of the Wehrmacht should be expanded. Ayed 19:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose.

The reason for merger is stated that the War Cimes of the Wehrmacht outshadow everything else. To me this is nonsense, the courts established in the 40's the Wehrmacht wasn't a criminal organization and if that's not recognized than you might as well say the SS and Nazi's aren't illegal as the courts said they were, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The Wehrmacht did carry out war crimes but not on mass and the average soldier wouldn't have seen any and if they did it was usually a SS act. A few months ago there was a front page article in the paper here about how the Canadian soldiers commited mass war crimes in France during WW2, it happens in way but with an army of millions and only a few war crimes happening as a resault of it (not it's allies like the Waffen-SS) this does not "out shaddow" it's history. I've talked to a couple of Holocaust survivors and they have nothing bad to say about the Wehrmacht and they lived through the worst of WW2.

Oppose, as per everyone else except Molobo. Having two articles is perfectly in line with usual practice on Wikipedia. Especially in the 1950s and 1960s, conservative circles in Germany tried to whitewash the Wehrmacht's image by putting the blame for any war crimes squarely on the SS and other non-Wehrmacht units. This whitewashed image has long been revised, it is generally accepted knowledge that the Wehrmacht committed war crimes, both in interaction with the SS and on its own. However, saying that "Wehrmacht" and "war crimes" are not mutually exclusive does not justify saying that these were identical concepts. Molobo's proposal is another attempt to prove his usual point ("Wehrmacht = criminals", or even "Germans = criminals"), and thus in clear violation of a basic editing rule. --Thorsten1 10:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Something important deserves its own section. Also, its largely enough to warrent its own article.--Kross^Talk 21:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo's edits

Molobo: I would appreciate it if you could shed some lights on the motivation behind these edits of yours: [1] and [2]. Apart from one sentence ("Such views were reinforced by traditional feelings and negative stereotypes against Jews and Slavic people that existed in German society before Nazi Reich came to being[3]."), they just seem to rephrase things that were already in the article before, in less than correct English. That sentence raises a lot of questions instead of clarifying things. It makes a statement that is ultimately neither verifyable nor falsifyable. Most importantly, it forms a digression in this article, which is about Wehrmacht, not German society at large.

Further, your statements in the edit summaries ("avoid making impression Germany was made out of Hitler" and "Avoided a bit of whitewashing that tried to avoid mentioning German state in favour of blaming a single person") don't make much sense. It is a commonly known fact that Hitler's views and those of the Nazi Party (which totally dominated the state apparatus) were quite identical. Therefore, to say that something was "Hitler's view" does not imply that it was "Hitler's and nobody else's view"; rather, it means that it was the view of everyone in any relevant political position. Your edit is understandable only to those who know that in Poland, it is currently fashionable to believe that "the Germans" wish to "whitewash" themselves by putting all the blame on Hitler. To anyone who is not aware of this domestic Polish media fashion, your edits must remain mysterious. Oh, and quite apart from that, it is sociologically incorrect to attribute an opinion to the "state". States do not have opinions; political actors have them. --Thorsten1 23:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo: 48 hours have passed and in spite of several edits elsewhere you have not replied to the above objections. Is it beneath your dignity to reply, is there a special rule that exempts you from having to explain the rationale behind your edits? Again, I encourage you to support your edits with arguments. If you decide to do so, please do so in your own words - no bulk pasting of vaguely related text from other websites, please. --Thorsten1 22:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't post any questions Thorsten, just your views of Polish media and me.

--Molobo 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I posted very specific objections to very specific edits and edit summaries made by you. Do not try to distract. You have the chance to relate to what I said and look for a compromise. If you do not use this chance, you'll have no moral right to object to changes of your wordings. --Thorsten1 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you give a pointed list of your objections so I would know what do you consider inaccurate in the article ?

--Molobo 23:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly could, but what for, when the issues are addressed in the first paragraph of this section? --Thorsten1 23:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any specific issues, since you say you could, then please I welcome you to do so for better understanting of terms you dispute.

--Molobo 01:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I, too, would like it if you gave a more extensive elaboration of your edits. If you really can't read a block of text, I'll bullet it out for you.

• No one is arguing that Hitler alone of all Germans held these beliefs. He was elected and retained a great deal of support until his death, including control of the 'german state,' which seems to be your concern.

Then it is no problem to write German state then.It will also avoid any misinterpertation. --Molobo 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your edit summaries for these edits are somewhat cryptic. Perhaps if you explained at greater length, it would be easier to understand your point of view in making these edits.

• The context of your contributions is difficult to understand for the majority of Wikipedians, that is, those who do not know the current common view of Germany in WWII held in Poland. Perhaps another article is needed in which this can be discussed.

I am not writing about anything related to perception of German actions in Poland. If you wish to write such article be my guest. --Molobo 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• States cannot hold opinions, though they do have policy. Hitler set most policy for the German Reich, so it is equivalent to say "Hitler thought" and "The German state thought" unless you really mean Goering or Himmler or whoever thought (and if Hitler didn't agree, they'd probably be pretty quiet about that). We cannot assume that everyone who was nominally a part of that state agreed with its official policy. That is not true of states today and it is unlikely to have been true then.

Good I will write that the German state had official policy. --Molobo 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your statement about traditional beliefs is POV. Personally, I've read 'Hitler's Willing Executioners,' and I find Goldhagen's thesis compelling in places, but as you will see from Daniel Goldhagen this is not a universal view. As such it's a debate that doesn't properly belong on this page. Perhaps War Crimes of the Wehrmacht might be a better place, though I'd rather see it as part of s discussion on the Holocaust in general with a link from WCotW, since as Thorsten points out it's not a statement about the Wehrmacht, or of special relevance to the Wehrmacht, but one about German society generally.

Antipolish and antisemitic sentiment and prejudices in pre-Nazi Germany are well documented. I am not using Godlhangen but Boehler. --Molobo 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC) As an aside, Thorsten, the issue isn't that isn't not verifyable or falsifiable. Neither are many other statements found on the great 'pedia. But it's just dropped in as fact rather than presented as a competing theory among others, which is NPOV, and it doesn't belong on this page. Zabieru 06:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Zabieru: Thanks for "bulleting out" my remarks and adding more of your own opinion, which almost entirely coincides with my own. I agree with your paragraph on Goldhagen. Let's see if Molobo understands your version better than mine... Just to clarify, the hypothesis that has come to be identified with Goldhagen (although it is really much older and more widespread) is indeed neither verifiable nor falsifiable. One can only list arguments pro and con. This, of course, is true of most things outside the exact sciences. However, there are some interpretations which have gained almost universal acceptance. My concern is that Molobo presents as a "fact" something that is really a interpretation of facts, which is far from being universally accepted; secondly, that this interpretation, universally accepted or not, is out of place here per the reasons you elucidated. --Thorsten1 16:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A comment for the record: In spite of dozens of edits elsewhere, Molobo sees it fit to ignore my and Zabieru's objections. --Thorsten1 10:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo has an annoying habit - rendering the structure of discussions and his opponents' points unreadable by his sloppy formating and placement of replies. If someone wants to see Zabieru's statement and Molobo's interspersed replies clearly, they should consult the edit history.

"Then it is no problem to write German state then.It will also avoid any misinterpertation." No, it is a problem, because "opinion of the state" sounds linguistically awkward and sociologically wrong. States do not have opinions - full stop. Even if a state is controlled by a single person, that person's opinion is not the "opinion of the state".

"I am not writing about anything related to perception of German actions in Poland." You are. I suppose you are not going to deny that you are describing things from a Polish perspective. In doing so, you seem to be unaware that things which are being discussed in Poland are not always easy to understand for non-Polish readers. You also seem to be unaware that things which are considered obvious facts by a majority of Poles are sometimes not known, not easily understandable, and sometimes even unacceptable for a non-Polish readership. This does not only apply to this article, but to many other of your contributions as well. You consistently refuse to recognize this. The vast majority of your edits are made from a specifically Polish perspective, and you take it for granted that non-Polish editors understand this perspective and agree with it. You do not even accept that people try to qualify your statements as being made from a Polish perspective, because you are not aware of your own Polish perspectivity and therefore unable to distinguish it from diverging, but equally valid perspectives. Instead, you implicitly or explicitly attack people as "anti-Polish" when they are just taking offence with your individual editing behaviour, which is totally uncompromising and more often than not linguistically inadequate. Unfortunately, uninformed non-Polish readers tend to identify this style of debating with the "Polish POV", confirmed by the fact that the Polish community on en.wikipedia appears to be unwilling to set bounds to your specific style of editing.

"Good I will write that the German state had official policy." This would be a highly redundant truism, don't you agree? As per my above point, such a statement would effectively imply that you believe that the international wikipedia usership is totally uneducated about the nature of the Nazi regime and ideology, and that you consider it your personal, or a national Polish mission to change this. Rest assured that even outside Poland, the history of the Third Reich and the treatment Poland received from it, has been thoroughly researched and taught about -- even if Polish public opinion tends to believe otherwise, influenced by sensationalist "Polish death camp"-type stories.

"Antipolish and antisemitic sentiment and prejudices in pre-Nazi Germany are well documented. I am not using Godlhangen but Boehler." You are not "using Boehler", but are referencing a sweeping statement identical to Goldhagen's with an abstract courtesy of Google, which merely cites (unreferenced) Goldhagen-like opinions ("Recent studies state, that the influence of Nazi ideology was crucial, since slaves [sic] and Jews were not seen as human beings [...]"). Again, you do not even care to read your own sources properly -- for the author, Jochen Böhler, goes on to criticize these opinions: "Although the evidence of anti-Slavic and anti-Semitic prejudices in the war diaries, reports and letters of German soldiers during the “Polish Campaign” is glaringly, this explanation does not suffice". In other words, even though such prejudice exists, it does not explain the atrocities committed by Wehrmacht soldiers, as you insinuate. This is what happens when you try to support evident POV statements with hastily retrieved, half-read or half-understood Google search results...

"Antipolish and antisemitic sentiment and prejudices in pre-Nazi Germany are well documented". This is a textbook example of a strawman argument: Nobody implied that such prejudices did not exist. I merely criticized your statement that these prejudices in society at large can be identified as a cause for the Wehrmacht's behaviour, as original research and/or POV. Your very own source contradicts this Goldhagen-type interpretation which you seek to attribute to it, as is shown above. This is yet another example of your incompetent or intentionally manipulative use of sources, which often enough demonstrate the very opposite of what you are trying to demonstrate with them. --Thorsten1 23:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please repeat your issues without resorting to personal remarks. Then I will respond. --Molobo 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed to talk: In addition historians point out that traditional stereotypes and prejudice towards these people that existed in pre-Nazi Germany contributed to those atrocities. - "historians point out"? Meaningless statement w/o evidence. "Contributed to those atrocities" - very vague statement. Colonel Mustard 01:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no sources cited for anything on this page. May as well delete the entire page, then. --Drogo Underburrow 01:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What does broad armament and deep armament mean?

It needs to be defined in the article.

I've included a sentence on these issues, according to the German Wikipedia articles. "broad armament" would be the production of weapons itself over a short period of time, while "deep armament" would provide raw materials over a longer period.--Matthead 03:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

War crimes

Hello, till there can given sufficient sources for the involvement of every soldier in the Wehrmacht in war crimes my edit from "The Wehrmacht" to "Parts of the Wehrmacht" should stay. Kenaz9 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

---

As I expected the step to remove part of war crimes information led to whole deletion of the already reduced section, including links to it. I try to remain in good faith but sadly such common events seem to indicate activity involved with certain infamous groups with infamous ideology. --Molobo 12:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Judging from Molobos edits (and reverts) here in Wikipedia, he seems to be convinced that the main purpose of the Wehrmacht, and all other Germans before and after, was and is to commit atrocities against Poland, no matter whether it is killing people or editing his contributions. --Matthead 03:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The facts are usually hard to accept when you believe you are a "Master* race(sic). --Scott Grayban 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to delete material from here, saying it belongs on another page, then move it to that page, don't just delete it. War crimes of the Wehrmacht -- Drogo Underburrow 08:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparing these two versions, I think the summary section for the War Crimes subheader should be larger, although there is no need to go into the ideological background behind Nazism in this article. I suggest:

Main article: War crimes of the Wehrmacht

The Wehrmacht committed numerous war crimes during World War II — terror bombing of open cities, massacres of civilian population, the Commissar Order that called for the summary execution of Soviet political officers, and the execution of prisoners of war and civilian hostages as punishment for partisan activities in occupied regions. Though the massive exterminations associated with the Holocaust were primarily committed by the Nazi German political armies (the Waffen-SS and the Einsatzgruppen), the Wehrmacht was also involved, as Wehrmacht officers and soldiers worked side by side and cooperated with the Einsatzgruppen in many locations, rounding up Jews and others for internment or execution.

As the extent of the Holocaust became known at war's end, the Wehrmacht promoted the view that it was "unblemished" by the crimes of the political armies. Though OKW chief Wilhelm Keitel and chief of operations Alfred Jodl were convicted for their roles in war crimes, the Nuremberg tribunal declared the Wehrmacht itself was not inherently criminal in the same way as party organizations like the SS. This was seen by many in the German public as exonerating the Wehrmacht, though recent evidence has asserted far deeper Wehrmacht involvement in war crimes, particularly in the East.[4]

Any thoughts? Olessi 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's far from perfect, but it's still better than Mattheads wholesale deletion of the entire para. As to specific concerns:

1. My first impression was that this part is written from some bizarre point of view. On one hand it mentions some war crimes specifically (or rather types of war crimes), though after reading it I had an impression that it was rather an exception than a rule. At the same time targeting civilians was rather a rule of thumb for the Wehrmacht. But of course this might be me and not this article.
2. The Wehrmacht did not only cooperate by rounding up Jews and others. The Wehrmacht also committed a large number of war crimes on itself, not as SS' helper. In fact I bet that most of the war crimes committed by the Wehrmacht were barely related to the SS, Endlosung and so on.
3. A separate article on Clean hands of the Wehrmacht phenomenon has been on my to-do list for quite some time now. Any ideas what should be the best title?
4. I also have a problem with the famous German exhibition on war crimes in the east in that it tries to present the war in the USSR as if it was waged in a different way from the war in Poland (which was barely mentioned there), while it was not. On the other hand it's not specifically related to the current para in this article.

On the other hand perhaps we could return to this discussion in some two months, when the proper article on war crimes of the Wehrmacht is finally ready. Currently it is little more than a set of stubs. //Halibutt 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Section about used armory, vehicles, etc ?

This page has description of command structure, well. But where can i find links to what was used to figth ? Which tanks, which aircrafts ?

Shouldn't this page be linked to directory pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_AFVs_of_World_War_II ?

Be bold, link it. --Matthead 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

SA units added to the Wehrmacht

I never heard of that. What's the source for this? 217.85.87.5 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true. For example in September 1939 the men of SA-Standarte "Feldherrnhalle" were transferred to Army Infantry Regiment 271. They even were allowed to use the former "SA-flag" within the Army. (Davis, 1975).--Gomeira 06:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

GERMAN ORDER OF BATTLE

The following is a recent book which lists the German Order Of Battle from 1935 through June 6, 1941. Included are Army Units, Waffen-SS Units, and Semi-Military and Auxilliary Organizations. It also includes brief Bios of Senior Officers, and includes tables of formations and units. Finally, it has a map of the Whrkreise that were established in 1935, and expanded during the war. The book is a reprint of an intelligence document prepared and updated during World War II

GERMAN ORDER OF BATTLE

Prepared by British War Office, 1944.

Introduction by I.V. Hogg

Greenhill Books, London

Stackpole Books, Pennsylvania

ISBN 1-85367-170-3

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Reichswehr

According to Babelfish, Reichswehr translates to Realm resistance.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

haha, good point.--AchtungAchtung 00:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Otto von Colinburg-Bodigheim?

I'm really sorry, but I haven't stumbled across this guy in my life? I browsed the internet and found nothing - is there a typo or some vandalism on the page? --Jinxs 22:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of him. I also googled that name and mainly wikipedia pages showed up. I assume that it's a fake. If he actually did exist, then he is definitely not prominent.--AchtungAchtung 00:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

The image on thop should be changed. The one that is used now looks kind of ridiculous.--AchtungAchtung 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture

File:German troops in Russia, 1941.jpg

Troops during training.

I've seen this pic a number of times, and always it was stated that the photo was shot during the training for propaganda purposes. Plus judging from the helmets I'm not 100% sure whether it's Heer. Any comments? --Jinxs 16:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, 1) the position of the photographer is in front of the soldiers, 2) One of the soldiers throws a granade, so 3) the enemy is really close (less than 20 meters). 4) Therefore, either the photographer really, really loves his job and is willing to risk his life for it or that's a kind of training.

--Jinxs 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Most photos in the Second World War were staged. What do the helmets have to do with anything? They look like standard M35 helmets to me. Plus they're muddy. Must be Army. :-) (Collar patches kind of give it away too).Michael Dorosh^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the first point - True. As for the muddy helmets - for a moment I thought it's a sort of camouflage, and for a long time that was Waffen SS speciality. But having a second thought I agree with you. Anyways, do you think that changing the caption was ok? --Jinxs 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who added this picture to the article (and about five others today). And as with above yes it might have been staged but so is the famous pictures of Red Army troops with the Soviet flag over the Reichstag. But I think we can be certain that these two men are Wehrmacht and not Waffen-SS. I can see how the you could see camouflage on the helmet but the fact they have collar litzen instead of SS Bolts clearly shows they are Wehrmacht troops. LCpl 23:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

These guys are also wearing the summer uniform/working uniform, so it is most likely taken during a training. --88.112.23.15 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding a link

Hi. I was hoping to add a link under External Links to www.Germanwarmachine.com on the Wehrmacht page. I am the site owner.

I added this link to other pages, including weapon pages as we have video clips of some weapons, but all the links were removed.

I'm new to all this but I gather I must have links approved, so I guess this is a good place to start!

Thanks

GWM 11:30, 28 November 2006 (GMT)

"Defence force"

I don't know why I'm being reverted about translating Wehrmacht as German-English dictionaries rather than taking the constituents of the word apart and translating them literally, but here are some links to confirm it.[5][6][7] "Defence force" has a very particular connotation in English. The same goes for German-Swedish dictionaries, which translate it as krigsmakt (krig, "war" makt "(political) power; might"), which is etymologically very close to the German term, but still translates to just "armed forces". Please keep in mind that the meaning and origin of words or terms are not the same thing. And if you're worried about readers missing out on the subtle nuance between Streitmacht and Wehrmacht, then the section right below the lead should dissolve any confusion.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The literal translation is now mentioned, so I think that's o.k.--Gomeira 08:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to correct the most recent change, and explain why. Wehrmacht is a composite of Wehr+macht, which mean War+making, or "the doing of combat" to be etymologically correct. The intention was to create an organisation that encompasses all management functions of the General Staff, so its not the literary meaning that is taken here, but a very German literal on of actually making the process of going to war, ein, zvei, drei :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 12:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's unfounded and wrong, mrg3105mrg3105.

You should do a bit of reading about this. Peter Isotalo, above you was on the right track: "Macht" does nowhere translate as "making" and taking "Wehr" for "war" is right-out ridiculous.

"Wehr" is a common substantive meaning "act of fending off/defense" as in the verb "wehren". It is still used today as in "Feuerwehr" (Fire department) or "sich zur Wehr setzen" i.e. "to defend oneself".

And "Macht" is indeed "force" or "power" and no gerund of "machen"/"make".

Relevant here is the use of the words in the 20th century, not in the middle ages ('Old high German').

Furthermore there was no purposeful spontaneous 'name-change' at all, as you imply above and in your edit of the article.

"Die Wehrmacht der Deutschen Republik ist die Reichswehr. Sie wird gebildet aus dem Reichsheer und der Reichsmarine…" -Wehrgesetz vom 23. März 1921; § 1

"The defence force (Wehrmacht) of the German Republic is the Reichswehr ('Imperial defence' = given name of the armed forces). It is formed by the Reichsheer ('Imperial army' = given name of the German army) and the Reichsmarine ('Imperial navy' = given name of the German navy)." -Defence Law; Mar 23rd, 1921; § 1

You see, you got to understand that "Wehrmacht" was a common german word for 'defence force' (e.g. Italian armed forces = "Italienische Wehrmacht") that evolved into the armed forces given name after the 1933 Nazi takeover. This was because the Nazi government felt that "Reichswehr" was too much associated with the lost World War and the unloved republic after it. They just didn't use it anymore and took the more general term "Wehrmacht" instead.

I will correct the literal translation and remove the implication of a name change for the purpose of achieving a "Making War" meaning.

The referenced text and the development of the name can be looked up in the german Wikipedia article, for example. [8] 85.182.10.64 (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. Now, how about you register and add all this information into the article?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Terror Bombing

How did the army do that I think you mean the Lufwaffe

The Wehrmacht is all the armed forces: The Heer is the army, Luftwaffe is the airforce, and the Kriegsmarine is the navy, they are all part of the Wehrmacht.

P.S. please sign your comments.

--Jadger 07:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

War years

This section is too long in my opinion. I think it should be split up into smaller sections or at least paragraphed. Its just one big long ugly paragrph at the moment, and excuse me if it seems stupid, but I am put of by so much cluttered text as I assume, would any non-professional, which by the way, is one of the points of wikipedia, exchanging info from those who have it to those have it not. Is this paragraph here that I am typing not ugly?Tourskin 02:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

not only was it too long but the man, or whatever you want to call him, who wrote it had no clue that "Wehrmacht" means "armed forces" and not just the army. 139.48.81.98 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture link broken

The person who uploaded this picture should fix it, as it's just blank at the moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sefog (talk • contribs) 13:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Wehrmacht Heer

I've introduced a separate article named Wehrmacht Heer to focus on the army and its units which are covered by many separate articles. No hierarchical structure seems to exist on Wikipedia that would connect these articles, though.

The article Wehrmacht should focus on general aspects. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I deleted the photo of "The dancing Armenians". User Vonones placed it in the articles about the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS. It doesn't belong in any of these. An encyclopedic article should give an overview of a topic. Details like this picture one can and should find in specialized books on the topic. More important and informativ are photos of personalities and equipment. BTW, in the Waffen-SS article it was under 'Morale and discipline' and here under 'Origines and use of the term'.

I deleted all photos. There are some users that blow up this and other articles with useless pictures. Bleh999 is a good example. An encyclopedic article should give an overview of the topic. Photos and images should enrich it. Random pictures of dead or captured soldiers, nameless battles in Russia and one Generalfeldmarschall are rubbish. I know that many users call me a troll but I only want the encyclopedia to be an ecyclopedia.

You even deleted the Balkenkreuz emblem, that edit seems more like vandalism I'm sorry to say, I wouldn't mind adding good photos of the Wehrmacht, but most of the German WWII pictures seem to have licensing problems or unknown copyright status, although some are usable here for example this photo [9] Bleh999 03:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bleh999. All of the present pictures and images are worthless. First the "Balkenkreuz", it was not "The Emblem of the Wehrmacht". Before the Polish Campaign the Wehrmacht had no emblem for its tanks and aircrafts. During the Polish Campaign it was a white cross, an excellent target for gunners. Afterwards it was the "Balkenkreuz", but in general only for tanks and aircrafts, it did not stand for the "Kriegsmarine". Second the "Flag of the Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht". It is not his flag, it is his standard, his pennant, and only for a short period of time. Third the picture of the soldiers with a PAK 36. Where was the photo taken? What does it stand for? Fourth the German troops invading Poland from East Prussia. Why not showing German troops that invade the enemy from Silesia or Pommerania or the Rhineland or Libya or (occupied) Poland or Romania?

literally "defence make" -> incorrect

Wehrmacht (listen) (help·info) ("armed forces", literally "defence make")

"defence make" is incorrect. "Macht" in this context is meant as "force". "Wehrmacht in those times was used in the way of "Streitmacht". it has nothing to do with "machen" (make)

kind regards Tobi (Hagen, Germany)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.25.216.200 (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please could this be a section of Wikipedia???

Casualties in the Werhmacht I found this in that section.

Millions of German soldiers would die over the course of World War II, with current highest estimates at 5.5 million. The corpses of German soldiers became so commonplace that they stopped generating any emotion whatsoever and became an inextricable part of the European landscape, and were often improperly buried or not at all. Hungry pigs often devoured the remains of German soldiers, such as near the Maas-Waal canal in 1944, where men of the 82nd Airborne were powerless to stop the swarms of hogs feasting on dead German soldiers.[4]

Sincerly i think this is not apropiate to show this in the page. I think is correct to make a clear explanation for example how many casualties the werhmacht took acording to their sources, them if nessesary an aproximation by modern storians or other eliable sources. Then, explain and break down the clases of casualties they took; for example, in terms of killed , wounded or missing, etc. This paragraph or better said regarless piece of cosmetic information really dont deserves to be mentioned maybe the episode of the Maas-Waal as a part of explaining the lack of bodies without being buried, but if not it dont deserve to mention. Iam working on it.

Best wishes Miguel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.41.97.41 (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is all bullshit. The Germans army killed more enemy soldiers than they lost, so if the landscape was littered with dead Germans, it would be littered by even more enemy soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.128.97 (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wehrmacht= Defence Might

The literal translation of Wehrmacht ist "Defence Might". If we look at the two words that make up the word Wehrmacht there is first "Wehr" which is the noun to the verb "wehren", which translates as "to defend" and the word "Macht", which is the German word for "Might" (for institution's like royal or state) - the intended Propaganda meaning was to give the German people a feeling that the Armed Forces had the "might (the strength/power) to defend" Germany - therefore "Defence Forces" is a wrong literal translation. The true meaning and correct literal translation is: Wehrmacht = Defence Might. Arguably to achieve the same propaganda effect in English Wehrmacht would need to be translated as "Defence Powers". But I changed it now to "Defence Might" as this is the most literal translation. --noclador 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As a native German speaker I mostly agree with noclador's translation of Wehrmacht. What is meant is really "defence power". The current translation "make war" is misleading. The Wehrmacht's predecessor was the Reichswehr (literally: empire defence). Even though the Wehrmacht was planned as an agressor force, the name doesn't imply that. I tried to change the translation, but it was undone :-(. Well, maybe another time... Cycleman63 (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between literal translation and the concept behind the word. Both are explained. Wehrmacht is a composite word, wehr+macht. The closest English literal translation is war-making, but the German is somewhat different in the concept.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 11:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to go back to Old High German or something like that, there may be a connection between "wehr" and "war" (I'm not a linguist). But mixing "macht" and "make" (even though this may be correct from a purely linguistic point of view; again, I'm not a linguist) takes it too far in my opinion. This is definitely not the way this is understood in current German. How about "war power" then? 89.182.95.207 (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to sign in before editing ... Cycleman63 (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no connection between Wehr and "war" at all. The closest mod. Eng. cognate is "weir." Wehr translates along the lines of "bulwark, defense." Wehrmacht is actually the least aggressive of the 33-45 terms, aside from the generic Heer "host": Kriegsmarine "war marine" and Luftwaffe "air weapon."--Solicitr (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This word is really not from the Old High German. See http://books.google.com/books?id=TW_aIsT_vFUC, page 114. There is also the correct translation :-) Cheers... Jan Patera 147.228.209.150 (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me the source you suggest does say the word s from Old German. The only thing its wrong about is that the English might is related to the Old German maht because its really the other way around. In any case, ability is not the only word that can be used in defining what Wehrmacht means in the sense it was applied.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The "KIA" figures are mismatched

According to the German Army article, (Wehrmacht paragraph), there were 1.6 million KIA during WW2. In this article it says 2.3 million KIA during ww2. Someone needs confirm the figures and harmonize the articles. 83.255.78.154 (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC) The number of 2.3 includes KIA, other types of dead and MIA. Miguel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.146.244 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Commanders

As is, Adolf Hitler is the only listed leader of the Wehrmacht. I feel Karl Dönitz, leader of the Wehrmacht Kriegsmarine, and Hermann Göring, leader of the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe, should be added- they were both commanders of their respective sections. For example, Dönitz had just as much influence on the Kriegsmarine section of the Wehrmacht as Hitler himself. Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.117.40 (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

GOOSE STEP

The Goose Step form of marching was NOT the normal form of marching used by the German armed forces at any time. It was the ceremonial form of marching that required a lot of consentration and coordination within the formation performing the march. It was not useful for actually moving troops from point to point because it took too much effort. German forces normally wore Hobnail Boots prior to the end of World War Two, and marched in such a manner where the boots were brought straight down in a stamp that would create a loud sound that could be heard for quite aways, and could be used to instill fear and trepidation as those hearing it from afar tried to figure out just where the approaching forces were coming from. Otherwise, the Germans used the same Quicktime step used by almost every other military forces. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MEANING OF WEHRMACHT

@Hunterian: I'm sorry man, the German word "Wehr" means defend and NOT armed. JurSchagen (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bull. Wehr means "a man that is able to fight" in old german language. Over centuries it got a new meaning which is "armed man". Werewolf means man wolf. Read it. wehr=armed passt schoa. --89.49.235.196 (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

weren, Dutch version of German verb wehren, synonyms are keren, tegengaan, tegenhouden, uitsluiten, weghouden (source: http://synoniemen.net/index.php?zoekterm=weren) which would translate (loosely) in English to to "counter, oppose, stop, exclude, keep away"

JurSchagen (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC) JurSchagen

"Wehrmacht" was just the ordinary word for a defense army at that time. When the German army was still the "Reichswehr", the Austrian was already known as "Wehrmacht". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.42.151 (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Awkward (mis) translation

I realize that it has become traditional in English to translate Generaloberst as "Colonel-General"- but it's inaccurate and confusing. Literally it means "Highest General" or more idiomatically "Senior General," and it's silly to riff on the coincidence that the German rank equivalent to Colonel is Oberst "Highest". I propose correcting to "Senior General."Solicitr (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Or just using the original Generaloberst.Solicitr (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In the same vein as above is the term "Wehrmacht" which is too commonly translated to mean the German Army. In the interests of historical and linguistic accuracy "Wehrmacht" should be known as a synonym for the German Armed Forces of WWII. The branches are HEER - Army, LUFTWAFFE - Air Force, and KRIEGSMARINE - Navy. The WAFFEN-SS were an "unofficial" fourth branch, coordinating with the other branches and in some cases, especially late war, having command over everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.203.195 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 67.165.203.195 (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC) mcl181"at"juno.com /Loveland, CO

Marching?

In the info box it says marching- Goose step.

What utter nonsense the normal marching method was to walk normally swinging the arms from the elbows down in front of the belt buckle. The ganz stuffe was only used on vip parade occasions, and then only directly in front of the vips, as it is incrediblely painfull to goose step for any length of time.(Try it. Lift your foot up so your leg is at an angle of 45 degrees, whilst bending your ankle foreward as far as possible to make the top of your foot and leg a straight line. Then smash your foot into the floor.) Goose stepping caused many injuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr doris (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

why is there a war crime section on this article? shouldn't the article be neutral? let's remember that the Red Army was just (if not more) as brutal, can we remove the war crime section?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not "Tit-for-tat-pedia" where war crimes by one army cannot be discussed until there is a similar section for some other army. The German army and the Russian army were guilty of many war crimes in WW2, as were other armies. Feel free to add text to the article about the Red Army in WW2 based on reliable sources. "Neutral" does not equal "whitewash." Edison (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said that.

Not actually its not the same, there is already an article about the war crimes in ww2 of the wehrmacht, therefore the war crime section doesnt need to be here.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Having come to this article cold, I added a war crimes section. I note the previous controversy, but what eds cannot do is remove verifiable historic info. The para should be enlarged to reflect the truth and not POV. Peterlewis (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored the sourced information that was removed. It covers the dominant issues of this aspect of Wehrmacht, while leaving details in seperate article.--Molobo (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have also tried to change the History of the Luftwaffe article, but met resistance to any mention of war crimes. These articles should try to reflect what actually happened and not a whitewashed view of history. Peterlewis (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of your "Sourced Information" are just POV-claims and emotionally reproaches. This is not the place to bring out out wheeping statements about germans who cant accept the war crimes, Poles who want become someone more aware about it and so on... There is also an own article for the War Crimes, so there is no need to have another Article about it. Especially not one in this way. 77.133.153.20 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I support 77.133.153.20. Peterlewis' claims above about the Luftwaffe page above are untrue. He added, like he has done here, unsourced "information" to that article that read like POV driven shrieking. Needless to say he and Molobo (who joined in) failed to produce any sourced information whatsoever. What is really funny about their edits to this article is they use online sources like the daily mail!! A newspaper that has a reputation for being about as trustworthy as a rattle snake. Dapi89 (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear anon Please specific POV you claim is existing. So far your accusations are general and emotional and I can't address anything specific in them.----Molobo (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. He made himself perfectly clear. I have removed the last two paragraphs. The citation [5] is a dead link and [6] uses the daily mail; unacceptable. Newspapers, especially the Daily Mail are never acceptable. Dapi89 (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Rubbish" is no argument at all. Please state which Wikipedia rule prohibts using newspapers as sources of information.--Molobo (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be as you well know. "Rubbish" is describe your comments above about the IP. Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Read it. Pay special attention to Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. Clear? Dapi89 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that newspapers can be used as sources. None of the text you quoted says about banning them, only that opinion pieces should be attributed to authors, and when available scholary sources are prefered.Also the text is not in relevance to this as it speaks about 'news stories' not reviews about books which are different thing.--Molobo (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, it does nothing of the sort. Your behaving in an extremely dense way. This is why you cannot be trusted. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. The information you quoted from it claims to speak for Polish people in general; this violates the above misrepresentation. That is why I have removed it. Grow up and use your brain. Dapi89 (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

...and the sources you used were not book reviews. If you look at the two sentences I removed, the first source was a dead link, the second the Daily Mail. So they had nothing to do with book review. And news stories includes newspapers, as of course you know full well. Dapi89 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well i have to say that the current shape of the passage is again not acceptable. There are lots of serious flaws, some POV and wrong conclusions. It is also lacking sources for some statements. Some examples:

1. The Wehrmacht as a tool for State Politics? Source where. In the whole history of the third Reich it was more an opposition the government - as the sucessor of the Reichswehr a "state in state". Thats why Hitler strenghtened and favoured the Waffen-SS and cut off the Wehrmachts power while taking key-positions in the high command after he lost confidence in it.

2. "The Wehrmacht was found to be complicit in the Holocaust" So who founded that? Source? Thats just wrong, as there is nearly no relation between the Wehrmacht and the Holocaust.

3. The Hunger Plan: Of course this was another bad part of the suppressional occupation-politic, but as an introducation example for a war crime article it is not very adequate, since it has never been accused as one...

4. "The Wehrmacht ordered and participated in numerous war crimes during World War II — massacres of civilians, rapes" I really want to see where the Wehrmacht ordered some rapes...

and so on...

Because of that i will replace the first 2 passages. The third passage has also some flaws (The Waffen SS was not only not "officialy" a part of the wehrmacht, if was absolutly and completly no part of it - and so on) so i will fix it a bit that it fits to the first part. Ah and at last i think we need no 20 oversized images to the war crimes passage, i think one picture for one passage is really enough. StoneProphet (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Thats just wrong, as there is nearly no relation between the Wehrmacht and the Holocaust. They are several books on Wehrmacht's activity in Holocaust. Added reference to that. I do not have knowledge if Wehrmacht ordered rapes-will look into that, for the meantime I changed the sentence in appropriate way, as certainly it was the first military formation to start this in WW2. Also restored short overview of war crimes as it is vital part of Wehrmacht's existance. "The Wehrmacht as a tool for State Politics? Source where" From use of Wehrmacht to round-up Jews or to kill Polish intellectual elites etc. --Molobo (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your new version is definitely not appropriate. Please note that war crimes are only one aspect of the subject "Wehrmacht", so there is no need to oversize this part, especially when there is a detailed addtional article available. Due to that, i removed the picture, because as stated above one is really enough. The next problem is, that some of your claims are not covered by your provided sources. This begins with the second sentence. Also some facts are not expressed in the right way. The Wehrmacht did not plan the hunger plan, it was only designated to execute it. -> this makes the first passage meaningless. There are also no sources for the direct claims of the "Rape Order" and the "cases in which German Army officers and soldiers cooperated with the Einsatzgruppen, rounding up Jews and others for internment or execution.". I also think that some "cases" are not enough and too vague to be mentioned on such a big overview page, a view you surly do not disagree when i look in the paragraph below on this talk page. But of course you can add this to the detailed Wehrmacht War Crimes article. As long as this new version is not acceptable with so many flaws and vague comments i will put the old one back, a bit improved. StoneProphet (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Some members of the Wehrmacht did save Jews

The article writes "Some members of the Wehrmacht did save Jews", then mentions 2 people. Out of 18.2 milion. So how many exactly did save Jews ? Or perhaps Poles ? Giving 2 examples out of 18.2 milion seems a bit undue. Certainly "some" is not the correct word. Of course I understand that they are certainly more-but I wonder about the exact numbers. --Molobo (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

POV issues...

I draw you attention to this image that is available on Wikimedia commons

This is an invoice from the Wehrmacht for the cost of sending a goods wagon of prisoners to Sobibor Death Camp in November 1943.

This image quite clearly shows that the Wehrmacht was complicit in The Holocaust. I think this article - reads like a fan-site to the glorious German Army. It's revisionist history and borderline neo-facist.

The Wehrmacht committed a great number of war crimes during the second world war. This image - a smoking gun - rains on the parade of those who are trying to play down that history.

At some point it should be included in the article.

As much as I agree with your sentiment that the Wehrmacht was aware and complicit in many war crimes (and committed entirely separate crimes on its own), a better place for that image would be the article specifically discussing Wehrmacht war crimes.68.163.249.192 (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Calculating total casualties

The following can be read in the casualty section:

"The number of wounded surpasses 6,000,000, and the number of prisoners of war reaches 11,000,000, making a total of 22 million casualties from all causes during the conflict."

Together with the appr. 5,300,000 total dead estimated by Overmans, total casualties are supposed to be appr. 22,000,000 men. This statement seems to be so obviously wrong that I was tempted to delete it right away. Men that have been listed as WIA or POW might well later have died of their wounds or in custody, and with the method of calulation used above, they are accounted for twice (once as total dead by Overmans, and once as wounded or prisoner of war).

Perhaps the number of total casualties has been estimated in a different way, if so, it neeed further explanation in the section, but as long as it looks like this and the source for this statement can not be clarified, I strongly suggest that is deleted. /Best regards Erik EriFr (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

SS special forces

Hey I was wondering did the Nazis ever had a special op or did the SS take that role?--76.94.173.73 (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the SS were Nazis, too. But if you are interested in Wehrmacht special forces, check Brandenburgers. --Dodo19 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

One did not have to join the Nazi (NSDAP) Party to be a member of either the Allgemeine SS ("General SS") or Waffen-SS, but certainly it can be said that most if not all were in the Allgemeine SS. The SS under Otto Skorzeny created the special ops, Waffen Sonderverband z.b.V. Friedenthal, stationed near Berlin. The unit was later renamed SS Jagdverbände 502. The Waffen-SS also had two paratroop battalions': SS-Fallschirmjäger Bataillon 500/600. Kierzek (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wehrmacht Definition

• Main Entry: wehr·macht
• Pronunciation: vermä]kt, vem-, -m], ]kt
• Function: noun
• Inflected Form(s): -s
• Usage: always capitalized in German writings, since it is a noun; usually capitalized in English writings
• Etymology: German, from wehr defense (from Old High German wer) + macht force, might, from Old High German maht -- more at WEIR, MIGHT

  the armed forces especially of Germany from 1935 to 1945

Citation format for this entry:

"wehrmacht." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. (25 Aug. 2006).

Babelfish translates Wehrmacht to Armed forces.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 15:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, both agree and are correct, it means "armed forces". "Defence force" is a very literal interpretation of the constituent words, but not really a fitting translation. If a German speaker wanted to name a force intended specifically for defence purposes, they would probably say "Verteidigungsmacht", or, to use a more modern term, "Verteidigungskräfte". Of course, nowadays the term is quite closely linked to the period from 1935 to 1945 anyway. --SKopp 00:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Australian armed forces are known collectively as the "Australian Defence Force (ADF)". --Wikiain (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehrmacht translates into Armed Forces.--77.4.58.1 (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Article title

The Wehrmacht is the title given to the German Army only! It has nothing to do with the Luftwaffe or the Kriegsmarine. It would be appreciated if this could be resolved quickly. Maybe an editor can call the German Embassy to clear up this mess! That telephone number is:(202) 298-400074.96.13.139 (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article intro and understand what's written there. If you found your claim in a book then throw away this book for beeing grossly inaccurate. --Denniss (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia article "Wehrmacht" states: "Die Wehrmacht gliederte sich in Heer, Kriegsmarine und Luftwaffe" (The Wehrmacht "was (sub)divided into Army, Navy and Air Force". --Wikiain (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Erich Hoepner

The section on resistance really needs a re-write. It lists Hoepner as one of the officers who "opposed the atrocities of the Hitler regime"(!). This is really wrong. Hoepner was one of the German generals who worked most assiduously in applying the Commissar Order and in working with the Einsatzgruppen in murdering Jews in the Baltic states in 1941. Hoepner most certainly did not oppose atrocities, and instead was intimately involved with Einsatzgruppe A (which was was the most murderous of the four Einsatzgruppen in 1941) in the murder of defenceless Jewish men, women and children. The man was a war criminal pure and simple, and this page should should not be white-washing him.--A.S. Brown (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That needs to be corrected ASAP then.Also the whole section is unbalanced towards presenting Wehrmacht as resisting instead of having actual proportions where most of its activity was connected to genocide. Unfortunately many of the resistance members are presented as "resisting atrocities" where they only resisted Hitler, and were deeply involved in atrocities themselves.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"The overwhelming majority of the soldiers German Army worked enthusiastically with the SS in murdering Jews " [sic]

Checked the cite for this and the cite does not support this sweeping claim. The source takes issue with some orders issued by High Command and one officer by the name of Kurt Eberhard in particular. I might add that even if the source did support the claim, a Foreign Affairs review of the source notes that it is "a sharply opinionated work" that viewed the Axis armies as the forces of "evil." Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines mean that the point of view of the average or typical authoritative source is presented, not the particular point of view of a particular "sharply opinionated" source.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, Mr. Dell, this is truly absurd. The way that this phrased "Wehrmacht officers were known to cooperate with the SS in murdering Jews in the Soviet Union" makes it sound like that times the Wehrmacht helped out in the Holocaust, but this may or may not have been the norm. I resent the claim mader that I somehow twisted a source to make a false statement. Since you checked A War To Be Won, you already know what it says, but for the benefit of everyone else who might be interested, here are the two paragraphs in question from page 141:

"Hitler's goals pleaesd most of the army's senior leadership. Both Reichnau and Manstein issued orders of the day to their troops about the proper political atitudes toward the war in the east. Reichenau's order noted: "The soldier must have understanding for the necessity of the harsh yet just punishment of the Jewish subhumans...[He] is called upon to achieve two goals: 1) The extermination of the Bolshevik heresty...2) The merciless extermination of foreign treachery and cruelty to safeguard...the German Wehrmacht in Russia". A delighted Hitler termed Reichnau's order outstanding. Manstein commented that "behind the front, too, the fighting continues...Jewry acts as the middle man between the enemy in the rear..[and] the remaining enemy in the rear. More than in Europe, it...forms the center for all unrest and uprising".

A slogan about partisan war linked the treatment of both Russians and Jews in the great atrocities of 1941: "Where the partisan is, the Jew is and where the Jew is, is the partisan". Across the breath of European Russia, the invading Germans took matters into their own hands, as Hitler intended. Einsatzgruppen were responsible for the great bulk of the killing, but they received full co-operation from the army. At Babi Yar outside of Kiev, SS-Sonderkommando 4a murdered 33, 771 Jews and other Soviet citizens in a two-day orgy of violence in revenge for the Soviet destruction of Kiev. The local army commander, Major General Kurt Eberhard, cooperated enthusiastically, even providing the SS with an army propaganda company to persuade Kiev's Jews that they were moving for resettlement. On numerous occasions troop commanders ordered their men to participate in "special actions" against Jews and Communists. The repetitive nature of such orders suggests the level of co-operation between SS and army that occurred throughout the German advance. Everywhere the Germans advanced, the tide of murder, violence and destruction followed, on the Jews above all, but on the Soviet population in general." (Murray, Williamson & Millet, Alan A War To Be Won, Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2000 page 141.)

First thing, this absurd dispute about semantics is meant to obscure the real issue here, namely that the Wehrmacht was up to its eyeballs in blood. It is a matter of fact that the Wehrmacht was every bit involved in the Shoah as the SS was. The Einsatzgruppen were about 3, 000 men, and it was simply impossible for them to gun down 2.2 million Jewish men, women and children in 1941-42 without massive help from the Wehrmacht. The way Mr. Dell has phrased it is clearly meant to downplay and minimize the Werhmacht's huge role in this bloodbath. Yet, another user who is still trying to flog this very dead house of the "clean" Wehrmacht, the “untarnished shield” (note the metaphor here; a shield is a defensive weapon) that waged a "clean war". My point here is simply that the Wehrmacht played a massive role in the Holocaust in the Soviet Union, and this silly argument about whatever it was how "enthusiastically" it was involved in the genocide is an attempt to white-wash the Wehrmacht, to absolve them of their responsibility for the Holocaust, to clean away the blood from their uniforms and make them all shiny again. Second, Murray and Millet were using Babi Yar as an example of how the German Army operated in the Soviet Union, a point that Mr. Dell seems to have overlooked. There were thousands of Babi Yars all over the Soviet Union, and General Eberhard was just a typical German general in being so helpful to his good buddies in the SS. That is the point that the source was making, as I think that anyone who reads the above will realize. Murray and Millet are not saying as Mr. Dell quite wrongly claims that only one officer, namely Eberhard worked enthusiastically with the SS in murdering Jews, but rather are using Eberhard as an example of the vast majority of the Army officers worked with the SS in genocide. To repeat myself, Murray and Millet are using Eberhard as an example, and are saying that he was the norm in SS-Army relations. It is malicious to argue that somehow Murray and Millet are absolving the Wehrmacht of their responsiblity for the Shoah as Mr. Dell is trying to claim. Moreover they also mention Reichnau and Manstein by name as while, so it is not true that they are critical only of one officer and the high command. It is absurd to say that because Murray and Millet name only Eberhard as an officer who worked enthusiastically with the SS that Eberhard and Eberhard alone was the only officer who was enthusiastic about mass murder in the Ukraine. That is a serious misreading of what Murray and Millet wrote. More importanly, they say that SS-Army co-operation in genocide was massive, so they are being critical of the entire Wehrmacht. Third, Mr. Dell has a problem with historians who see the Wehrmacht as evil, or note as Mr. Dell puts it, in quotation marks as if this is a point for debate. I see, the Wehrmacht guns Jewish children, so Murray and Millet makes no bones about their repulsion for said slaughter of children, and this disqualifies them as a source. Coming from someone who boasted proudly about making anti-Polish statements (does that disqualify Mr. Dell from writing about Poland?) and who once wanted to use Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War as a source, this concern about neutrality is rather interesting. The latter book by Mr. Buchanan got almost unanimously very negative reviews when it came out in 2008, and I would certainly call a very opinionated book, indeed a "sharply opinionated" book would seem to be very accurate term for it (to be fair, Murray and Millet are indeed very opinionated about their likes and dislikes). But being opinionated is not a problem for a book that essentially absolves poor Hitler of responsibility for World War II (the Treaty of Versailles made him do it, according to Buchanan, and the real villian of World War II was Churchill), but when it comes to the Wehrmacht helping out with the murder of Jewish children, being opinionated is an issue. Buchanan's book portrayed Churchill as an utterly evil man, a crazed war-monger, a drunken idiot, a racist imperialist, a totally incompetent war leader, a war criminal, a fool who handed Eastern Europe over to Stalin, in short the worst leader in British history and despite or rather more accurately because of this damning picture, Mr. Dell wanted to use Buchanan as a source for the Churchill article. It is very hard not to conclude that someone has an agenda here when they wanted to use books that show the Alled side as evil while objecting that to the use of books that show the Axis sides as evil. "Sharply opinionated" books that damn the Allies are good while "sharply opinionated" books that are critical of the Axis are bad. Moreover, Murray and Millet are very much on the Allied side, but they are just as critical of Allied leaders as they are of Axis leaders, which puts their book miles ahead of Buchanan's one-sided picture of W.W.II. Perhaps a better question might be asked why Mr. Dell has a problem with using as a source a book that is very pro-Allied. After all, Buchanan says quite explictly in his book that war against Hitler was a huge mistake, that Britain should never declared war on Germany in 1939 when the Reich invaded Poland and that Churchill was a moron for refusing Hitler's peace offer in 1940, and that the war against the Nazi Germany was absolutely criminal and should never had been fought. In other words, it was morally wrong for the Allies to defeat Hitler. This double standard about what comprises good sources for World War II speaks for itself.

A War To Be Won has gotten much better reviews than Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecesary War has, and I might add, ever will. But because one reviewer calls A War To Be Won "sharply opinionated" that means one can't use it, but that does not seem to be a problem with the "sharply opinionated" book by Buchanan, which was trashed by almost every single historian who reviewed it. And why does Mr. Dell think it is right to cite Buchanan when he claims that the Red Army raped almost every single women and girl over the age in 10 in Hungary (see here), which is a very sweeping claim by any measure, but it is wrong to say that overwhelming majority of the Wehrmacht worked with the SS in killing Jews? Curious that a sweeping claim that is negative about the Red Army is fine in Mr. Dell's books, but one about the Wehrmacht is not. Mr. Dell is offended about the idea that Axis are portrayed as "evil", but does not seem to have any problems with Buchanan's picture of the Red Army as a gang of murderers, rapists and thieves bringing death and destruction all over Central Europe (which would strongly suggest that Buchanan sees the Red Army as a force for evil). Which brings us to the line "Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines mean that the point of view of the average or typical authoritative source is presented, not the particular point of view of a particular "sharply opinionated" source." The implication here is that Murray and Millet are a fringe source, and the idea that the Wehrmacht played a huge role in the Holocaust is not the historical mainstream. I am sorry, Mr. Dell, but you are not well-informed about these matters. If Murray and Millet are a problem, there are hundreds of books out there that make the same point. All the way back in 1961, Raul Hilberg had noted in The Destruction of the European Jews the Wehrmacht's colossal genocidal actions, and cited SS reports saying what an outstanding job the Wehrmacht was doing in helping with exterminating Jews. One might also consider the typically wise words of Gerhard Weinberg about these matters:

"The attack on Poland was in some ways a rehearsal for the invasion of Russia. In that case also Hitler had made it clear to his military associates that destroying the life of the Poles as a people, not breaking the strength of the Polish army, was the aim of German policy. At that time, there had still been some reluctance among the military leaders to become involved in mass murder; and, in any case, the focus of attention had shifted to the great campaign ahead in the West. The war in the West was, or at least appeared to be, over, and almost all restraints were cast aside. As Hitler explained in ever greater detail, especially in a speech to military leaders on March 30, 1941, the new campaign would differ from prior ones, that a war of extermination was at hand, and that a massive demographic revolution was about to begin in Eastern Europe. His views were met with understanding, agreement and support. A minute number had reservations, and one of these, Admiral Canaries, the chief of intelligence, had the courage to voice them, but most either went along with or showed their support for such schemes by putting all of their considerable energies into developing careful plans for their implementation.

In post-World War II Germany, a steady stream of military memoirs on the book market and perjury in court proceedings obscured these sad truths for some time, but recent publications based on research in the archives instead of post-war fabrications have provided a more accurate picture-and have not surprisingly been met by vocal hostility from some. It is now beyond doubt that the orders and procedures worked out in detail before the invasion and calling for the killing of several categories of prisoners of war, including Jewish soldiers and all political officers captured, were widely carried out and that the assumption was that the huge masses of Russian prisoners the German army expected to capture would be allowed to die of hunger and disease." (Weinberg, Gerhard A World In Arms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005 pages 190-191)

And anyhow, here is the review from Foreign Affairs that Mr. Dell cites to prove that one can't use A War To Be Won as a source:

"A brisk, vehement, and well-written operational history of World War II drawing on English, American, and German sources, this book does not pretend to delve into the works in the many other languages that deal with the greatest conflict of the twentieth century. Rather, its strength lies in its clear focus -- the conduct of military campaigns -- and its sound grasp of military organization, tactics, and technology, the rudiments of which are covered in well-conceived appendices. With a deep respect for the suffering of common soldiers, the authors do not hesitate to lambaste the high commands of each of the participating nations. These two veteran military historians have produced a sharply opinionated work that rests on an unabashed belief that this was a war of good against evil -- insofar as the Western powers were concerned, at any rate".

The review actually says that A War To Be Won is a good book, and I have no idea about why on the basis of one, mostly positive one paragraph review that he discovered on Google that also says correctly that Murray and Millet are very opinionated that one can't use them as a source. The "clean war" myth of the Wehrmacht has been totally discredited, indeed should never had been taken seriously in the first place, and I for one, did not understand why somebody is trying to bring it back. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. This debate over the line enthusiatic is really pointless, and so to settle this matter, I am going to change this much debated line over to the vast majority of the Army worked with the SS in murdering Jews in Russia. I hope is the end of this very unnecessary debate, but it probably will not.--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I, at least, understood my comment about the source to be that it should not be the only source, not that it could not be used as a source. It might not be fringe but that doesn't mean it's the median view. This goes to the question of whether the magnitude of claims made in Wikipedia should be restrained in scope or remain as intense and immoderate as the source. And even there, it is not clear that the "overwhelming majority" language (or "vast majority"), which is the biggest problem here, is supported by the excerpt you quote. I remain of the opinion that this is yet further intensification. As an aside, I provide some more of my own view of Buchanan's work here.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)