Talk:Wehrmacht/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Length of sections

Due to the length, sections: "Politics of the Wehrmacht" and even "Terror and Corruption", need to be considered for split off into a separate article or edits for concision made. See: WP:SPLIT for guidelines. Kierzek (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I support this idea. A file this size will not load on all portable devices; the page is definitely too large and unwieldy. The "Politics of the Wehrmacht" section is a good candidate for a separate article. -- Dianna (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Size

The Wehrmacht numbered some 2 million in 1945, and something under 20 million served throughout the 1935-45 period. So why does the article state that the numbers in 1939 were 20,700,000? This is obviously an error.124.197.15.138 (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

hello

why do we have this German Army (1935–1945), since Wehrmacht is written here?. --Neogeolegend (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Britain - Luftwaffe would have been very hard pressed to win it

I remember from somewhere, perhaps the RAF Hendon museum, that RAF fighter pilot losses only exceeded the number of new recruits for a period of maybe two weeks or so, while the Luftwaffe was nowhere near to replacing its losses by newly trained pilots. Therefore given enough time in the long run, the Luftwaffe had no chance of establishing air superiority since RAF pilot training and British fighter aircraft production was higher than the german counterparts. Stating that sticking to their early tactic of attrition and airfield suppression would only have prolonged the battle would be more historically correct in the light of those facts. Also the Luftwaffe leadership completely failed to realise the significance of the Chain Home radar stations and made very small efforts to suppress them. AadaamS (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

picture

Do we have to open up the wehrmacht article with a parade for hitler? It gives the wrong idea of the wehrmacht, which was the armed forces of germany long before the nazi party established power in germany. Most people do focus it on nazism and wwii, I think we can try to educate people to think beyond that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.65.65 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 31 January 2007

War Crimes Section Should Be Removed

Can anyone explain why the war crimes section was removed from the Red Army article, yet the Wehrmacht article still has one? This section should be removed as it seems filled with anti-Wehrmacht bias and paints the Wehrmacht in an unfairly negative light, when it for the most part actually was a professional fighting organization composed of ordinary soldiers simply fighting for their country, a far cry from the so-called "genocidal organization" that this section tries to paint it as. Plus the fact that we already have a separate article for war crimes committed by Wehrmacht personnel, and the fact that seemingly no other military force's article has a war crimes section (The Red Army article had one but it was mysteriously removed). ICE Bullet (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur.71.42.218.131 (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, no. See Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht; Myth of the Eastern Front. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Katyn

The article says-regular armed forces-NKVD was a secret police(like Gestapo) not regular military formation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Molobo (talk • contribs) 20:00, 23 August 2005

Comparative Ranks

There should be a page "Comparative ranks of Nazi Germany" or similar, mabe including paramilitary (SS, SA) ranks as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew238 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 October 2005

Rommel as C-in-C

Hello all. Is there a reason why Erwin Rommel is listed down as a Commander-in-Chief of the OKH in this page? Thanks, Steph, 12 March 2006 (comment left by 203.129.130.46•talk•contrib)

Pre-War years

Excuse me if this is a stupid question, but why isn't there any mention of the Wehrmachts pre-war armament and involvement in the Spanish Civil War? --JPC290•(talk•contrib•comment left at 06:14, 11 June 2007)

Photo of dead soldier

I deleted the photo of the dead soldier. See the Waffen-SS discussion and Fallschirmjäger.
Bleh999, see the Waffen-SS discussion and Fallschirmjäger.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.211.134 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 18 July 2007

Lead

I have quoted the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead:

Along with the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe, the Wehrmacht formed the heart of Germany’s politico-military apparatus. Hitler's generals successfully employed the Wehrmacht using innovative combined arms tactics (close cover air-support, mechanized armor, and infantry) to devastating effect in a method of war called Blitzkrieg (lightning war). The Wehrmacht and the German military juggernaut incorporated a new military structure,[6] unique combat techniques, new-found weapons, and an unprecedented speed and brutality against their opponents.[7] At the height of their success in 1942, the Germans dominated upwards of 3,898,000 square kilometers of territory,[8] an accomplishment made possible by the combined German forces with the Wehrmacht firmly securing conquered territory. Working hand-in-hand at times with the SS, soldiers on the front (especially during the Eastern campaign) participated in various war atrocities, despite claims otherwise.[9] By the time the war in Europe ended in May 1945, the Wehrmacht had lost approximately 11,300,000 men.[10] Only a few members of the Wehrmacht’s upper leadership were tried for war crimes after World War II, notwithstanding the evidence which made many more culpable.[11] More or less deconstructed by September 1945, the Wehrmacht was officially dissolved by ACC Law 34 on 20 August 1946.

I find that these paragraphs (particularly where bolded) make the distinction between the Wehrmacht and the Heer ambiguous. In the last case, were these the only war crimes of which the Werhmacht was accused. Were crimes only committed by soldiers (of the army) and not by members of the other services? Given the sensitive nature of a lead, I would much prefer that somebody much closer to the article address this. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Motto

The motto of the Wehrmacht was the same like the Motto of the Reichswehr (Gott mit uns!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.126.63 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Humanitarian acts

"Humanitarian" means "concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare"; I replaced this section heading with "Assistance to victims" K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Actual and legal dissolution of the Wehrmacht

(copied in from Talk:History of the Luftwaffe 1933-45)

Just warn you to be careful of your dates; the remnants of the Luftwaffe did not suddenly spring out of existence at 2359 on 8 May 1945 - I suspect formations, elements, and other bits and pieces continued in a variety of shapes and forms for up to months afterwards. I don't think the surrender at Reims actually unilaterally dissolved the Wehrmacht by decree. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The surrender forbade the German units any activity but to surrender. The Luftwaffe did not take to the skies anymore, the submarines surrendered to the first allied ship they sighted, etc. Officially the Wehrmacht was disbanded by order 34 of the Allied Control Council on 20 August 1946; but there were a bunch of orders before that had already forbidden the wearing of uniforms, disbanded all military institutions etc. Here you can find all the relevant orders: [1] - especially relevant: proclamation nr. 1, proclamation nr. 2, directive nr. 18, the laws (Gesetz) 8, 23 and 34, order nr. 2 - that's all I can remember for now. noclador (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

My German is limited, but I can see the first of those orders is dated 20 September 1945. So really for now, the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe was in existence 1 March 1935 - 20 August 1946?, unless there's another order somewhere between 20 Sept 45 and 20 Aug 46? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

actually that is a good question! In Germany it is assumed that the Wehrmacht ceased to exist on May 8, as from that moment on no the entire Wehrmacht surrendered and no orders were anymore issued from higher commands, no salaries were paid, all material was handed over, etc. etc. but from a legal point of view: on what date exactly was the Wehrmacht disbanded... I would say September 20th with proclamation 2, as it says "all German armed forces on land, on sea and in the the air, the SS, SA, SD and Gestapo, with all their organizations, staffs and institution, including the general staff, the officer corps, the reserve corps, the military schools, veterans organizations, ..., are to be fully and finally disbanded in accordance with the methods and procedures as defined by the Allied representatives." The law nr. 34 specifically says: "Because of paragraph I of proclamation nr. 2 from September 20th, 1945, the Allied Control Council issues the following law:" - now it lists again the same institutions as above - but omits the SS, SA, SD and Gestapo and adds instead "The German war offices: Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW), Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH), Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) and Oberkommando der Kriegsmarine ... are hereby viewed as disbanded and fully liquidated and declared unlawful." Surprisingly the law says "are hereby viewed as disbanded and fully liquidated" and then it states that any attempt to violate the law will be prosecuted with up to the death penalty. Therefore it can be assumed that after September 20th the allies began with officially dismantling the various commands and that this process was finished by August 20th 11 months later. I went through some legal texts now and they interpret it alike - disbanding began officially on September 20th, the Brits did it slowest and on August 20th 1946 nothing of the former Wehrmacht was left in any organized form. this is a link to copies of all the Allied Control Council documents in English.

Thanks Noclador. So Sept 20 with Proclamation 2 (did Bremner's staff remember this - that's creepy - Coalition Provisional Authority Order 2 !) seems to be the start of the legal process. Now, you and I both know that this 'assumption' about May 8 will have exceptions. Just because units/formations surrendered does *not* mean they were magically made-out-of-existence. Some activities must have continued in some areas. Do you know anything about 'routine' activities of Wehrmacht units, commands, etc, after May 8? If not, where would we look? Finally, I think we should move this whole discussion to Talk:Wehrmacht because it deals with the whole Wehrmacht, and then we can get on with the RM you listed. Cheers and best wishes

There is some info on that in the German Wehrmacht article - the most interesting parts of it are that in Norway life went on as normal (training was going on as usual - including live fire artillery training) and that Ferdinand Schörner ordered his troops to continue to fight, which they did for 3 more days (while he fled to Austria on the evening of May 8th!) - the last German unit to surrender did so on September 4th (Operation Haudegen). What is shocking - the navy kept its war tribunals going: 3 executions for desertion on May 10th, 1 on May 11th, 2 on May 13th, etc. etc. and imagine for the one on May 13th the Canadians actually arrested the two guys, handed them over to the head of the POW camp at Schellingwoude, who organized for a war tribunal and then the Canadians handed the German some rifles back to carry out the execution![2]

discussion copied in from Talk:History of the Luftwaffe 33-45 (RM). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

from Talk:German Army#Wehrmacht: "There is nothing controversial about the date 1946. For reliable sources, see Large, Germans to the Front (1996); Rolf-Dieter Müller et al., Die Wehrmacht: Mythos und Realität (2012); Diehl, The Thanks of the Fatherland (1993); Lockenour, Soldiers As Citizens (2001); Klein, "The Myth...", Baltic Defence Review (2001); and try [3] for numerous sources, mainly but not only in German." Buckshot06 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

From User talk:Tadeusz Nowak

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tadeusz_Nowak&oldid=708737827, "Your move of German Army 1935-45) Buckshot06 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC): You recently moved the article German Army (1935-45) to German Army (1935–46). The reason you gave was that the German Army of World War II was demobilized only in 1946. The source you cited in the article refers to a formation of the military police disbanded in 1946.

I should like to ask you to undo your move, as the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany as well as the Federal Court of Justice of Germany have both ruled in the 1950s that the German Wehrmacht, and all it constituent parts, have ceased to exist after 8 May 1945. Furthermore, the CC ruled that the Proclamation No.2, Directive 18 and Law No. 34 of the Allied Control Commission were merely declaratory in character. So under German law, which should apply in this case, 8 May 1945 marks the end of all German military forces.

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as someone is a prisoner of war, they are actively serving military personnel, and since most prisoners of war were repatriated and demobilized only in 1946, and since a number of army functions continued to be active until that time, for example the military justice passing out sentences on soldiers while POWs for things like, being rude to an officer or not obeying orders, the army was certainly not disbanded on 8 May 1945. That's a laughable idea, and absolutely not how a surrender works under international law. An army can not per definition be "disbanded" as long as it still has (as it had until 1946) a vast number of actively serving military personnel under military jurisdiction who have not been demobilized. First when all personnel is demobilized, an army can be disbanded. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sure you have reliable sources supporting your view. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Wehrmacht was only dissolved on 20 August 1946 by the Allied control council, after it had been demobilized from the summer of 1945 onwards and through 1946. (Large, David Clay (1996). Germans to the Front: West German Rearmament in the Adenauer Era, p. 25). This is of course also mentioned in the main Wehrmacht article. Until that date, it was active, with serving (conscripted and professional) military personnel wearing Army uniform and being under military Wehrmacht Army jurisdiction and military command. There was quite a lot of activity going on involving the Wehrmacht Army in the time after 8 May 1945. (It's impossible to demobilize an army with millions of soldiers stationed in multiple countries in just one day.) If it had been disbanded on 8 May 1945, the conscripted Army soldiers would by definition no longer be obliged to serve (not be under military command) and could not have been held as POWs under international law any longer; this was of course not the case at all. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I cleaned up the article further, by removing uncited / non notable / POV / undue material. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Prominent officers section

This appears to be a laundry list and OR: it's unclear that there's a set criteria of which names should go on the list. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat :-). I propose this section be removed. Would there be any objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Since it appears that there are no objections, I will go ahead and remove. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Working up to B-class

Would like to see the article brought up to B class. Please let me know if there's interest in working on this jointly. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Soldiers section

There are about 40 citations to the post-war US Army document, with content such as "given boots without charge", which does not seem to add value to the article. Some material I removed:

• All soldiers, professional or draftee, were entitled to free rations, quarters and clothing (the last was free only to enlisted men) while on active service; those compelled to eat away from their unit received $1.20 U.S. per diem. Professional soldiers were not given any additional allowance for quarters if living off-base (as this was considered part of their base pay), but draftees received assistance for their families while on active duty.

• Enlisted men were given all uniforms, boots, etc. without charge, while Wehrmacht officers were granted a one-time uniform allowance of $180 U.S. upon commissioning; $280 was paid to Naval officers. Officers were given $12 U.S. per month thereafter for uniform maintenance. Professional soldiers were paid a cash enlistment bonus: $120 U.S. for a twelve-year contract, or $40 U.S. for a 4.5 year contract.

References

Would there be any objections to significantly trimming this material? K.e.coffman (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Since there have been no concerns, I will go ahead and continue to trim these areas. Please let me know if any edits look problematic. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't visited this article in some time, as I've been involved in other projects and haven't spent much time on WP lately. I noticed the changes made here, which appear to be pretty substantial. Was there a question about the reliability of the documentation, or was the material deemed to be of no value? I'm not necessarily objecting; just curious. Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ecjmartin: Ah, I see that you've comment here as well. In general, I've found the material to be intricate detail and based on a dated source (1945). I did not feel it was adding much value, with the information on how much soldiers were paid (in 1945 USD equivalent), how exactly their bread bag looked, etc. It was not saying much about the armed forces as a whole, their doctrine, tactics, why was their performance what it was, etc. I feel that this information is still lacking, and needs to be added. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I guess it comes down to a judgment on what exactly constitutes "value." One historian might find such information intriguing, while another might think it is overly-detailed. In adding the info, I wanted to open a more "human" dimension to the article that would expand on the usual encyclopedic fare of wars, commanders, weapons, etc. Having been a former soldier myself, I found it intriguing to compare the pay and benefits I received in the US Army in the eighties to those of my German counterparts (even if I fully despise the man and cause they fought for) during the 30's and 40's. That said, I may be in the minority. I see from your page that you have extensive experience editing these kinds of articles, thus I am willing to bow to your judgment especially in the absence of any other commenters when you brought this question up originally. Hence I am willing to consider this question closed, if that is agreeable to you. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

How many?

"The army was limited to one hundred thousand men with an additional fifteen thousand in the navy." "The Reichswehr was limited to 100,000 men..." Why would the army need to be limited to 100,000 if the armed forces, which included the army, was also limited to 100,000? I suspect that one of these sentences is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.49.58 (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Reichswehr was limited to 100k men in the Army (Heer) and 15k in the Navy (Marine) branch. The Reichswehr was not the name of the ground forces only just like Wehrmacht wasn't the name of the ground forces only.--Denniss (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

So the second statement that I quoted, that the Reichswehr was limited to 100,000 is wrong, isn't it? The Reichswehr, comprising both army and navy, would have been limited to 115,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.85.76 (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Successor

The claim in the lead that Germany doesn't have a military today is factually wrong. The German editor inserting this claim is perhaps not familiar with the meaning of the word "successor" in the English language, namely a (separate) person or institution that follows another (separate) person or institution, as was the case with the Bundeswehr in the 1950s in its role as Germany's military. A claim that the Wehrmacht has no successor, that is to say that Germany has no military today, has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "successor" in the English language. The cited source (the book by Rolf-Dieter Müller) doesn't support the assertion either, rather the opposite. He writes that

"Because of the requirement that the Bundesrepublik, the legal successor of the German Empire, be based on the borders of 1937, there could be no complete repudiation of the Wehrmacht [...] The Wehrmacht was, in any case, considered the culmination of the 300-year-old tradition of the German military. The Bundeswehr, in contrast, was seen as a new creation that, despite a continuity in leadership at the outset, would develop its own traditions. A complete distancing from the Wehrmacht was not considered reasonable"

Here, he makes no claim that the Bundeswehr didn't succeed the Wehrmacht as the German military, and he doesn't mention the word "successor" in such a context at all; however he does mention that the Federal Republic of Germany was the successor of the Deutsches Reich, as well established both in international law and German jurisprudence.

The establishment of a new military organisation doesn't mean that it doesn't succeed the former military organisation, just because it is new (or because it develops some new traditions), which would seem like a totally meaningless assertion to any English speaker. The very nature of the word "successor" implies that there was a former, now dissolved organisation, and a new one which takes its place (as Germany's military). The only way the Bundeswehr could not be a successor to the Wehrmacht would be by not being Germany's military, but something else entirely, say, an agricultural enterprise not involved in any military activities, or the military of a completely different country, say, Malaysia. In other West European countries the WWII era military organisations don't have successors because the original organisations still exist.

Even more ridiculous was the claim that the Wehrmacht was "shunned"; as is well known, the opposite was the case, and the Bundeswehr regularly named barracks, ships and so forth after Wehrmacht generals, and most officers in the early years were Wehrmacht veterans. The Müller source clearly doesn't support a claim that the Wehrmacht was "shunned", but rather supports the opposite view. --Tataral (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No need to go linguistic here. The German Empire ceased to exist after the May 1945 surrender - hence the term Zero Hour. The Federal Republic of Germany was founded four years later on the territory of the Western Allies' Trizone, the German Democratic Republic a few months after that in the Soviet zone of occupation. Until 1990 the German Empire was nominally governed by the Four Powers, although the two states gained some kind of sovereignty in 1955. That year also saw the formation of a West German military, the Bundeswehr, and a similar outfit in the East, the National People's Army. Both organisations followed the military requirements of the Alliances they were part of, i.e. NATO and Warsaw Pact. Now where exactly do you make out the succession you are talking about? Except for some of the personnel and installations there is little linking the Bundeswehr and the Wehrmacht. And what little "tradition" was retained, was expunged by decree in 1999 (Traditionserlass) not to mention concepts like "Innere Führung" or "Staatsbürger in Uniform". Even more so in the GDR, where the very term "People's Army" linked directly to military reformers such as Scharnhorst and the traditions built in the Napoleonic era, rather than following what characterised the Wehrmacht.

Now would be a good time for some suggestions on how we get the line of succession untangled? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, here you are offering your private opinions which not only contradict established German jurisprudence and what is recognised in international law, and in scholarship in general, but which also directly contradict the source you yourself just added to the article. For your information, countries don't "cease to exist", unless they are annexed into another country or something like that. The rest has little to do with what I wrote above. The Wehrmacht, the former military of Germany, has a successor, namely the current military of Germany. The adoption of meaningless empty slogans like "Staatsbürger in Uniform" has no bearing on whether the Bundeswehr is the successor of the Wehrmacht as the German military as we understand the word "successor" in the English language. --Tataral (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not following this line of argument. Nazi Germany literally seized to exist in 1945 and was administered by the Allies as occupied territories until the establishment of West Germany and East Germany years later. Likewise, I do not see how it is possible for "the current military of Germany" (presumably, that of the unified Germany) to have the Wehrmacht as it predecessor.

BTW, the de Wiki article on Traditionserlass offers some German-language sources, sources such as:

• Detlef Bald, Johannes Klotz, Wolfram Wette: Myth Wehrmacht. Postwar debates and preservation of traditions, Berlin 2001, ISBN 3-7466-8072-7 .
• Jakob Knab: Incorrect glory. The tradition of the Bundeswehr, Berlin 1995, ISBN 3-86153-089-9 .

This source, also included in the article, is available in English:

• Wette, Wolfram (2007). The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674025776. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict, regarding "ceasing to exist") Editors' private opinions are of little interest. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. The source added by User:ÄDA - DÄP, as discussed above, states the opposite. Of course, a huge amount of additional reliable sources stating the same thing could be found. The national socialist regime ceasing to exist doesn't mean that the country ceases to exist; that is a ridiculous assertion, completely unsupported by reliable sources, and contradicts all established scholarship and legal thought (both established principles in international law and German jurisprudence, as set forth, e.g. by the German Constitutional Court), and incidentally, the source used by User:ÄDA - DÄP. . --Tataral (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of those sources are relevant to the question here, which is not an inward-looking one-on-the-planet German debate about traditions, but whether the former military of Germany has a successor at all, that is, whether Germany still has a military. There is nothing in the word "successor" that implies that a military organisation must have existed continuously. --Tataral (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is what the German Constitutional Court itself has ruled [4]: "Mit der Errichtung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurde nicht ein neuer westdeutscher Staat gegründet, sondern ein Teil Deutschlands neu organisiert (vgl. Carlo Schmid in der 6. Sitzung des Parlamentarischen Rates – StenBer. S. 70). Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist also nicht ‚Rechtsnachfolger‘ des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat ‚Deutsches Reich‘". As we are talking about the same country, the current military organisation is obviously the successor of the former military organisation as we understand the term in English. --Tataral (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just ignore the Cold War, fast-forward to 1990, and Germany = Germany again. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If the Bundeswehr is the "successor" of the Wehrmacht in the sense that it has been the next German military, what about the National People's Army? It assumed the role of the German military in 1956 as well and until the end of the 1960ies the GDR claimed to represent the whole German nation. By that simple logic, focusing on the word "successor", the NPA (NVA) must have been a "successor" of the Wehrmacht, too. While that may be literally true, the real issue at stake here is military tradition. I imagine that this can be reworded to properly address the ambivalent relation between Bundeswehr and Wehrmacht.--Assayer (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a rewording makes sense; the real issue here is that the wording "The Wehrmacht did not have a successor post World War II" means, in the English language, that the Wehrmacht as the regular German military was dissolved and that no new military ("successor") has ever been created. A discussion of "traditions of the Bundeswehr" in the sense of the peculiar one-on-the-planet German debate fits better in a section of the Bundeswehr article than in the end of the lead of the Wehrmacht article which only briefly addresses the post-Wehrmacht military history of Germany. The focus should be on the military military organisations created a few years after the Wehrmacht was dissolved.

As I understand it, the official position of East Germany was that it was only the West German Bundeswehr which was the successor of the Wehrmacht. This was also well in line with the fact that West Germany claimed the legal identity of the Deutsches Reich as a subject of international law and was generally treated as such internationally, whereas East Germany was less interested in retaining or claiming this legal continuity, and was generally not treated as such internationally, neither by the Soviet Union or its allies or the west. The position of West Germany on the continuity of the military was, as the Müller source noted, somewhat ambiguous and certainly not one of complete distancing; they even wanted to name it Wehrmacht (vetoed by the US), the majority of officers in the 50s–60s were Wehrmacht veterans, they routinely named barracks and ships after Wehrmacht figures, and the German CDU/CSU establishment heavily defended the Wehrmacht against criticism throughout the entire Cold War and beyond. So the claim that West Germany "completely broke with its traditions and legacy" is blatantly false. In any event, there doesn't have to be a continuity in traditions or anything like it for a (new) military organisation to succeed a (former) military organisation as the regular military of a country. (Also, the Bundeswehr does actually still observe numerous Wehrmacht-era traditions, e.g. Großer Zapfenstreich and many elements of military culture, and a belief that there can be no continuity in traditions is very naive).

Instead of making contentious claims about whether there was a "successor" or not, the lead could simply that that: "During the early Cold War two new German military organisations were established, the Bundeswehr of West Germany and the National People’s Army of East Germany". Complex debates about the many different views about continuity or traditions could be left for those articles. --Tataral (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Ambivalence and ambiguity are good words to describe what occurred in the post war period. See for example: "...but the endorsement of the Innere Fuhrung did not entail a formal public critique of the Wehrmacht, nor did it translate into the support for the punishment of military war criminals. This paradoxical approach... in ''Reassessing the Nuremberg Military Tribunals. I would be okay with stating, as suggested:

• "During the early Cold War two new German military organisations were established, the Bundeswehr of West Germany and the National People’s Army of East Germany".

Would like to hear from others as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

David Clay Large also has a very good discussion of the ambiguity regarding the Wehrmacht when the Bundeswehr was born, in Germans to the Front: West German Rearmament in the Adenauer Era (Univ of North Carolina Press, 2000), in which he points out that the issue was complicated and nuanced (p. 246). For example, he notes that the defence ministry originally wanted to staff the first units "exclusively with former Wehrmacht officers who had had distinguished military careers", but due to the fact that the establishment of the West German military was postponed, many of them were already too old or had found new civilian careers (p. 239). Regarding the name, he notes that

Hasso von Manteuffel suggested 'Bundeswehr', which had already been advanced in some newspapers. Manteuffel admitted that he would have preferred to stick with 'Wehrmacht', but the Americans had vetoed this suggestion. 'Bundeswehr' at least had the advantage of sounding 'provisional', allowing 'Wehrmacht to be saved for 'the future army of united Germany' (p. 243).

--Tataral (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Italics

Is there a reason that this is not italicized when all the branches underneath it are? Primergrey (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

1,2,3,4-star-ranks

To use the terminology of one, two, three or four-star rank is not an academic one, because there was nor a German either a British rank system of "stars" for Generals and Field Marshalls, but is an US-terminology. Even the French or Soviet system is different (A major general is called general de division and has three stars). Is US-terminology the standard for an international encyclopaedia? So a German three-star-rank of that time was not a General (he had only two stars=, but a Generaloberst. So the comparison doesn't work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.198.67 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

de:Max Merten

Hauptmann Max Merten organized the extermination of Thessaloniki Jews. Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Hello,

In the section 'Crimes against civilians' the source Grossmann, Atina (2009) Jews, Germans, and Allies Close Encounters in Occupied Germany pg. 290 and Bos, Pascale (2006). Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape: Berlin, 1945 pg. 996–1025 are used to cite the number of rape victims under Nazi Germany's conquest. Unfortunately, none of the source support the actual statement or nowhere near enough.

The citation to Grossmann is arbitrary and unrelated as it seems, please see page scan 290: https://imgur.com/a/8dNxPXF

The citation to Bos is tangential, she points out:

pg. 1008 The dissertation by historian Wendy Jo Gertjejanssen suggests that hundreds of thousands, “if not millions,” of women and girls on the eastern front experienced sexual violence at the hands of German soldiers during World War II: “These crimes were in the form of sexual harassment and abuse, forced abduction into military and concentration camp brothels, rape, and mutilation” (2004, 1). Gertjejanssen also points out that “the deliberate starvation by the Germans of people in the east led to a less obvious, but altogether important crime: the willingness to exchange li[f ]e-saving materials only with those desperate enough to sell their bodies” (2004, 1)

pg. 1009 Of interest here is a 1942 Wehrmacht document that suggests that the Nazi leadership considered implementing a special policy for the eastern front through which the estimated 750,000 babies born through sexual contact between the German soldiers and Russian women (an estimate deemed very conservative) could be identified and reclaimed as racially German. (The suggestion was made to add the middle names Friedrich and Luise to the birth certificates for boy and girl babies, respectively.) Although the plan was not implemented, such documents suggest that the births that resulted from rapes and other forms of sexual contact were deemed as beneficial, as increasing the “Aryan” race rather than as adding to the inferior Slavic race. The underlying ideology suggests that German rape and other forms of sexual contact may need to be seen as conforming to a larger military strategy of racial and territorial dominance (document reprinted in Johr 1992, 69).

Please see Pascale Bos full article page scan 996–1025: https://imgur.com/a/ADC5ewq

Thanks BeanBasket (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The other was to show that Raped did occur I will add source that gives the range Jack90s15 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jack90s15, just to understand you correctly, you have added Atina Grossmann - the other source? - despite being unrelated to the actual statement made in the article? What do you mean by range? Please, would you care to elaborate? Thanks BeanBasket (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I Redid everything to match the sources so its right, I did before it give a Range but you said it was wrong and I looked over it, and I fixed it to be right thanksJack90s15 (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jack90s15, thanks for correcting the obvious mistakes. It appears now there's only a single source for that assumption, is that correct? Skipping through the pdf you provided in German language, google translates the paragraph roughly as follow: On the basis of biological conditions, it can be statistical assumed, that about every tenth sexual intercourse resulted in a pregnancy. Thanks BeanBasket (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

IT says on page 9 of the Pdf

Auf Basis biologischer Gegebenhei-ten lässt sich davon ausgehen, dass statistisch gesehen etwa jeder zehn-te Geschlechtsverkehr eine Schwan-gerschaft zur Folge hat. Folgerichtig muss von etwa 10 Millionen Verge-waltigungen deutscher Männer allein auf russischem Boden ausgegangen werden.

On the basis of biological conditions, it can be assumed that, statistically speaking, about every tenth sexual intercourse results in a swan. Consequently, it is assumed that about 10 million rape of German men took place on Russian soil aloneJack90s15 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jack90s15, yes that's about as far as I could go with my absent German language skills. However, there are still some issues with the statement, as it claim 'sources estimates'. As far as I'm concerend, there's only a single source that support this assumption, is that correct? If the translation is trustworthy, then the statement needs to follow the authors narrative and explain how the number of victims are accumulated. The wording 'incidents' connote that there's actual evidence, otherwise the author would not emphasize their guesswork, based on rape statistics. Thanks BeanBasket (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

the way that its Worded Gives a range like it says Sources estimate that rapes of Soviet women by the Wehrmacht (range up to 10,000,000 incidents) which the two sources show like World War II deaths Range up to 85 million dead Jack90s15 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

just like what Bos says pg. 1009 Of interest here is a 1942 Wehrmacht document that suggests that the Nazi leadership considered implementing a special policy for the eastern front through which the estimated 750,000 babies born through sexual contact between the German soldiers and Russian women (an estimate deemed very conservative) it giving a Range Jack90s15 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jack90s15, I'm unsure if you grasp what I'm saying. There is only one source for the assumed number of rape victims and one for the assumed pregnancy that might have resulted in 750,000 babies being born. The plan was not implemented and it is therefore questionable to suggest this might actually happened, as the boy and girl babies would have received birth certificates and so 'identified and reclaimed as racially German'. However, this shoud not mean that no mass rapes occured. Thanks BeanBasket (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

from Bos it says

The dissertation by historian Wendy Jo Gertjejanssen suggests that hundreds of thousands, “if not millions,” of women and girls on the eastern front experienced sexual violence at the hands of German soldiers during World War II:

estimated 750,000 babies born through sexual contact between the German soldiers and Russian women (an estimate deemed very conservative)

such documents suggest that the births that resulted from rapes and other forms of sexual contact were deemed as beneficial, as increasing the “Aryan” race rather than as adding to the inferior Slavic race.

its giving a range when it says range up to 10,000,000 incidents, its matching that are given with the subjectJack90s15 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jack90s15, Bos does not say these babies were born as a fact, you are reading out of context. The plan to create racially German babies was not implemented and victims that became pregnant were ordered to be executed instead (per Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing, and Dying). After all, the Germans wanted (Generalplan OST) to erase 60 percent of Russia's population and 15 percent should have been sent to Siberia, and the remaining 25% used as slaves. Thanks BeanBasket (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

it says

pg. 1009 Of interest here is a 1942 Wehrmacht document that suggests that the Nazi leadership considered implementing a special policy for the eastern front through which the (estimated) 750,000 babies born through sexual contact between the German soldiers and Russian women (an estimate deemed very conservative) could be identified and reclaimed as racially German. (The suggestion was made to add the middle names Friedrich and Luise to the birth certificates for boy and girl babies, respectively.) Although the plan was not implemented, such documents suggest that the births that resulted from rapes and other forms of sexual contact were deemed as beneficial, as increasing the “Aryan” race rather than as adding to the inferior Slavic race. The underlying ideology suggests that German rape and other forms of sexual contact may need to be seen as conforming to a larger military strategy of racial and territorial dominance (document reprinted in Johr 1992, 69).

I removed the part that was there is not needed its talked about on War crimes of the Wehrmacht so this issue should be resolvedJack90s15 (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jack90s15, i'm perplexed by your move. Why do you have requoted the paragraph from Pascale Bos? What do you want to say? The statement just needed some linguistic nuances and the explanation of the author on how these figures have to be looked at, thats all what I wanted. An accurate description of what these authors are telling. The crude explaination is despicable, especially on major topic like mass rapes. Thanks BeanBasket (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I explained originally why I thought it'd be a good idea to put and I did not mean to come off as rude with it
it was not needed because it's already mentioned elsewhere like I said
And we both  provided citations  with what we  were trying to get through
And since the material is removed the issue is resolved good day !!!Jack90s15 (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to the editors who helped get this article mentioned in todays DYK. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 21:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

I accidentaly ruined the infobox by trying to add another supplier and I can't fix it now. Please could someone fix this? Pizzasuperman (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wehrmacht personel by September 1944

According to german archives, examined by American historican Colonel Kole, on September 1944 total wehrmacht personel were 10.165.303 men and women.28regiment (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Around

@Jack90s15: what is they point of having it other than “it’s in the book”? It statistics, of course it is an approximate number, just like it just written “18,000,000” who served and not “around 18,000,000”. You will also notice that all other pages on armed forces all have just numbers without needing to specify it is approximations. Skjoldbro (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: I did look I do get what you mean. But can we work on one thing there is no Section for Ranks for the services ?Jack90s15 (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: maybe in the Personnel and recruitment part of page?Jack90s15 (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15: that would probably be the best place for it. What do you have in mind? There previously was something about ranks, but I Removed it, as there was a lack of purpose and it was generally bad. Skjoldbro (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: have like the Enlisted personnel ranks for each branch? I found this cite that has good animation http://www.alanhamby.com/ranks/rank.htm something like this.Jack90s15 (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15: I think that if you want to have something about ranks, then it should be more like how it is done on us armed forces. Since rank tables are already present on each branch page, rank page and Comparative ranks of Nazi Germany. We will end up drowning in the same tables. Skjoldbro (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro:I see what you mean the other way I think would be fine now how would that look for this page?Jack90s15 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15: I think it would end up cluttering the page with unnecessary information, but you could try sandboxing the page and adding the table, as a test run.Skjoldbro (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: I can try that then you could see how it looksJack90s15 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: I think adding a see also to Ranks and insignia of the German Army (1935–1945) to the Personnel and recruitment part of page. would be the best thing are you ok with adding that?Jack90s15 (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15: Why though? There already is a link to all rank pages in the infobox. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: ok you are right that answers my Concerns I am glad we talked about this Happy trails Jack90s15 (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Disappointingly Inaccurate

I don't understand the author's reasons for repeatedly, and incorrectly, tying the Wehrmacht and Nazis together, but this article needs to be fixed by a real historian. Simply put, the Nazis were a political party. The Wehrmacht was the military arm of 'Germany'. The SS were the Nazi's military branch. 104.34.129.102 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The crucial point here is that your view is at odds with the consensus among real historians (and just FYI that's precisely what many of us are). See Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht for more information. Generalrelative (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In English

The word Wehrmacht often refers only to the Army (Heer). Perhaps the article should mention this. Grassynoel (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It's always the whole military of this german era. No idea who would only refer to the Army. --Denniss (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This view is represented in many articles; it's nevertheless wrong. Grassynoel (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Disbanded" date given in the infobox contradicts source directly attached to this date.

Looks stupid if the article contradicts its sources. Fix it. --84.189.92.195 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• World War II military deaths in Europe by theater and by year.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"German officers" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect German officers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 29#German officers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 06:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

References to foreign and domestic suppliers

The source of the supplier listings was not mentioned. 37.29.236.39 (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)