Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/German military history task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Banner image

I've used as the banner image to start off, since that seems a common enough symbol of "German" military things. If anyone has a better idea—one of the German coats-of-arms, perhaps—please feel free to suggest it! Kirill Lokshin 12:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. Main symbol of the Germanic military from the Teutonic Knigths all the way to the Bundeswehr. --Andrés C. 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Support also. --ScreaminEagle 05:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK Wandalstouring 11:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Austria

Should we include articles about Austria in this taskforce until, if ever, there is a special taskforce for it? Austria was after all closely linked with the rest of Germany until 1866. --Carl Logan 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Austria is already covered until 1806, as a component of the HRE. I would say that running up to 1866 with it would probably be fine. After that, it becomes Austria-Hungary, which is a thornier question (but most of A-H's military activities would be covered by the WWI task force, so they're not left entirely in a void.) Kirill Lokshin 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

While Austria and the German principalities and kingdoms shared the same language, culture, and ethnic background, their history as political entities ran along very different lines, not just since 1866 but centuries before that. We could say that the main longterm strategical objective for Austria in central Europe was preventing the unification of the small German states into one stable political entity. I'd say that the military history of Austria shouldn't be included in this task force. --Andrés C. 14:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, you might have a point post-1648; but certainly before the Peace of Westphalia, Austrian (or rather Habsburg) objectives were more along the lines of causing the unification of the small German states into a stable political entity—their own. The end of the Thirty Years' War might be a good place to break off our coverage of "Austria" in practice, if we're so inclined. Kirill Lokshin 15:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is beginning to remind me of the discussion of creating a German task force at all. Shouldn’t the principle be “the more, the merrier”.--Carl Logan 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Lumping Austria in with Germany is probably no worse in practice than lumping Burgundy or Provence in with France, and that doesn't seem to have elicited many complaints. Kirill Lokshin 15:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I honestly don't think that the Burgundy/France example can be applied to this case. What really matters here, as I said, is that the political entity that we call Germany today has had its own historical development...and it really doesn't include Austria, no matter what efforts the Habsburgs made to bring some or all of these states into its sphere of influence at any one time (HRE notwithstanding). Anyhow, if we are going to lump Austria in with Germany, we need to modify the scope of the task force to reflect this reality. BTW: now that there's a Dutch task force, I don't see why Austria shouldn't have its own. Cheers. Andrés C. 14:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If Austria were to have its own, where would we classify pre-1648 HRE warfare? Kirill Lokshin 15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, beating my head against this for a bit: why not have a Habsburg task force, which would cover (a) most of Austria, (b) parts of Spain, (c) parts of Hungary & Bohemia, and (d) the various proto-Austrian principalities (Styria, Tyrol, etc.)? Given that Austria's military history post-WWI is fairly small, there shouldn't be too much left out. Kirill Lokshin 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea at all to consider. Of course it will step on the toes of quite a few of the other TFs out there (Napoleonic era, WWI, French, Polish) but by now that shouldn't be a problem. Anyhow, the Habsburgs are not my field - so to speak :) --Andrés C. 15:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Austria not being part of Germany was a political solution (Kleindeutsche Lösung) by the Prussian Chancelor Bismarck after 1866. Still Austria was considered Germany by the Nazis. I consider Switzerland, Austria and Germany all part of the German taskforce. Define German more as culture and language, because for some time it consisted of lots of independent states. Wandalstouring 11:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Very worried about Wandalstouring's definition of "German", given the history of the 20th century. It could stir up a hornets' nest of argument that diverts us from the task in hand. In any case, it's far too wide - do we include Don Germans, etc? Some might include Netherlands and Liechtenstein. Germany is a political entity: use that as our basis, allowing for fluctuations over time. Bismarck's solution kept Austria separate, leave it at that and don't intrude on the Swiss - after all, they drew a clear line between themselves and Germany.

Another point: does this TF include the use of, say, Hanoverian mercenaries outside Germany, eg during the American War of Independence? Personally, I'll stick to the 20th century. Folks at 137 (on holiday, using a strange pc) 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Hanoverian mercenaries would probably count—Hanover being pretty undisputably German—as would, say, German landsknechts in foreign service. I don't think this will be a particularly big deal in practice, though, as the number of articles in question is fairly limited.

As far as the other stuff:

• Netherlands are out, as we now have a Dutch task force.
• Switzerland doesn't really have that lengthy a military history (and the articles there are probably adequately covered by the French and Middle Ages task forces). I see no problem with including Swiss-German warfare here, but I don't think it would be appropriate to include Swiss history in its entirety.
• Austria is the messy one, in my opinion. I still think that creating a dedicated Habsburg [Empire] task force (under whatever name) would help avoid a lot of the problems here. Post-Habsburgs, Austria's military history doesn't have much in the way of articles to cover, so I don't think leaving those topics out will be a major issue.

Kirill Lokshin 19:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

One other (possibly simpler) approach to consider would be to try and follow the contents of the Military history of Germany article, which includes Austrian (or rather Imperial) military affairs up to the Peace of Westphalia and the Ottoman Wars in the latter half of the seventeenth century, but focuses on Prussia and the territories of the modern state of Germany after that. Kirill Lokshin 19:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

German military task force is messy. Label it Prussian and you have solved the problem. See, there were two German solutions discussed, the Großdeutsche Lösung including Austria and the Kleindeutsche Lösung excluding it. Austrian nationality rose after they were excluded. Most Swiss actually speak German, they were an insurgent group of peasants in the mountains creating their own state. And concerning the Dutch leaving the Holy Empire can get wierd. They and the North-Western Germans spoke the same language back then and were part of the same culture (several of them signed on the Dutch warships). In the wiki article on the Dutch the problem is solved quite tricky by refering to them as Germanic peoples, a common root with the Germans. A huge problem really dividing between the Dutch and the Germans in history pose the Friesians divided between them. The Dutch themselves emphasize their origin as a group with one language of Germanic origin.

So I suggest to make a difference between German and Germanic to be out of the woods. Furthermore we can talk about the history of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (full official title heiliges römisches Reich deutscher Nation) and all parts including it, such as northern Italy, the Netherlands and Bohemia as long as they were part of the game. The Teutonic Order can be coproduced with somebody concerning Baltic history. And then we reach the time when certain political units decided not to be German, so we have less to worry about. A big problem are the German settlements spread across Eastern Europe. We could handle them like the French task force handles the Huguenots. Wandalstouring 21:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, focus on groups self-identifying as "German" during the periods when they did so? In other words, cover Austria for as long as Austria considered itself to be a "German" state and leave it off after that? Kirill Lokshin 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also added a request on the main project discussion page for anyone with ideas about these issues to drop by here; hopefully, more people commenting here will mean we can come to a consensus more effectively than continuing to discuss this among the five of us. :-) Kirill Lokshin 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be an approach in accordance with the definition of German as Kulturnation. It is OK as long as the group defining themselves not-German is independent. Problem is if they are under German rule (currently the Sorbs, a remaining small Slavic tribe in Eastern Germany, their ethnity played a controversial role for the Soviet military in 1945). So Bohemia in the Middle Ages can be considered German because of German rule and being part of the German political union. This makes the Hussites "German" despite the fact they were an anti-German (Holy Roman Empire) and pro-Czech movement. So we have to remember adding anti-German position of "German"s.

The origin of the word "deutsch" (meaning German, but the root for the English word Dutch). There is a theory that it origins from "teutsch" meaning common or general population. So "teutscher nation" (of the German Nation) has the original meaning of nonspecific nationality (with the later connotation of illiterate underclass during the Middle Ages). teutsch had originally nothing to do with teutonic, but Latinisation brought it along. Wandalstouring 21:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the hornet's nest has already been stirred. This taks force has a lot of troubled waters ahead concerning the Pre-Bismarck Unification of Germany. As I had earlier stated in the original discusion of the creation of this article: " I would try to encompass the area of modern germany as well as the german tribes throught to the Holy Roman Empire and onwards to the modern german state, passing through Prussia's hegemony and the Teutonic Orders. " In other words as long as there as been a german important influence (hegemony) of the concerned state, it is fair play for this task force. All that remain is to definine german... a not so easy a task.--Dryzen 14:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Entstehung Deutschlands The Foundation of Germany

Since when it is possible to speak of Germany is objectively almost impossible to state. Neither ethnically, nor linguistically, nor territorially the establishing of an independent German nation can be definetly dated.

See also Names for Germany derive from different perspectives.

Old High German "diutisc" developed into Englisch Dutch and German (Deutsch), German source

landsknecht are Central Europeans and not exclusively Germans. [User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] 00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To dumb-down this discussion for a minute: Userboxes!

I realize this is incredibly stupid, but do we have a userbox? Everyone else has one, so we should, too, dang it. Please note that I don't know how to make one or else I'd do it instead of whining about it. --ScreaminEagle 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

{{User WPMILHIST German military history task force}}. Enjoy! :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Huzzah! Many thanks, Kirill!--ScreaminEagle 17:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Solving the problem of defining German

Actually there is no working definition for German in istory and it is a sensitive issue. Therefore I suggest to relabel this task force: Central European military history task force.

File:Europe map with description.PNG

Regions of Europe

Central Europe is the region lying between the variously and vaguely defined areas of Eastern and Western Europe. In addition, Northern, Southern and Southeastern Europe may variously delimit or overlap into Central Europe. The term has come back into fashion since the end of the Cold War, which had divided Europe politically into East and West, with the Iron Curtain splitting "Central Europe" in half. The understanding of the concept of Central Europe varies considerably from nation to nation, and also has from time to time.

The concept of central Europe varies, the Germans are likely not to include their eastern neighbours under this topic. Close to a NPOV is if we can look at it geographically. So we have a fitting description. We do also have a merger of ethnics that existed most of the time in this area (Slavic roots and influence of Germans, German roots of Czechs, Jews speaking Yiddish in Poland, etc.). Germans, Polish, Danish, Czech, Austrians, Hungarians, Swiss, etc. I must admit it is an unusual perspective, but perhaps the best to get a NPOV history about the region without hurting any national feelings.

The Dutch are a chapter of their own, usually they define themselves as totally differet than the Germans and part of Western Europe (counter-remnants to the Nazi era), but Dietsland and Duitsland (Deutschland) have a lot more in common in history (Holy Roman Empire) than just the same Germanic root word (for diets and duits -> seperated into different meaning for the southern and the northern Germanic origin people). Ancient English sources made no difference between them till some time after the Dutch independence. So there is some overlap with the existing Dutch military history taskforce.

The Teutonic order is a bit outside of this area, but was legally strongly connected to the HRE and sometimes to the Polish king, so we could integrate him. Wandalstouring 23:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There's also a massive overlap with the Polish task force, according to the map shown. I think trying to combine Germany and Poland in a single task force would be a monumentally bad idea that will lead to no end of infighting. Better, even, to work with some vague notion of "German" than to create such a volatile combination; we don't really need the Gdansk/Danzig battles fought inside of a single task force. Kirill Lokshin 23:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I will ask the Polish what they think of it. I really overlooked them. But as far as my experience goes there is not much beef between Polish and German (contrary to Dutch and German). Actually we do have large parts of military history in common. Wandalstouring 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I would be extremely careful so as not to offend anyone; even the question has been known to cause flare-ups of old conflicts.

In general, I'm beginning to think that a vague definition might be best; anything which may be legitimately described as "German" could be included, but we would make clear that said inclusion did not mean that the subjects were truly "German" in any national sense. Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. I asked the Polish task force. I really do think we can work reasonably on sources together. If wikipedia fails because of national POV edit wars, we truly do something wrong with the different national taskforces and contradict our NPOV policy. Wandalstouring 23:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite calm. I just think, given the history here, that this might be an idea that nobody will really be satisfied with; I'm perfectly content to let the Polish task force respond, though. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Need help with link for an article

Hi all,

I am a sometime editor of the Ethnic German article. In that article, there is the following sentence:

"The city centre of Kaliningrad however was entirely rebuilt, as the Britishbombing campaign of 1944 and the siege of Königsberg in 1945 had left it in ruins."

Here's where I would like some help. Is there an article about the British bombing of Königsberg in 1944? If not, should there be?

Thanx.

--Richard 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Im Zweiten Weltkrieg erlitt Königsberg 1944 durch britische Luftangriffe starke Zerstörungen und brannte mehrere Tage lang. Der historische Stadtkern, bestehend aus den Stadtteilen Altstadt, Löbenicht und Kneiphof war praktisch vollständig zerstört, darunter der Dom, das Schloss, sämtliche Kirchen der Innenstadt, die alte und die neue Universität sowie das alte Speicherviertel. Wenige Wochen vor Ende des Krieges wurde die zur „Festung“ erklärte Stadt von sowjetischen Truppen eingenommen. Die Militärführung der Stadt unter General Otto Lasch ergab sich am 9. April 1945."

In the WWII Königsberg suffered in 1944 heavy damage through British air attacks and burned for several days. The historic city center, consisting of the quarters Altstadt, Löbenicht and Kneiphof was in fact completly destroyed, among it the dome, the castle, all churches of the city, the old and the new university and furthermore the old barnquarter. A few weeks before the end of the war the town, which had been declared a "fortress", was taken by Soviet troops. The military leadership under general Otto Lasch surrendered on 9th April 1945.

That is all german wiki says, so it was a minor event. Wandalstouring 20:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey I looked on the map there. It looks like USA is split between Germans, African Americans and Mexicans. funny. Wandalstouring 20:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

German Paracute forces that fought on Leros

I would like help on finding out about the German forces that fought in the Battle of Leros in 1943. Also the German commander. If anyone could help i would appreciate it. Tristan benedict 16:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

German parachute fought on Crete, Leros was Italian and according to German wiki:

"In Lakki wurde die Stadt aufs Neue errichtet; alte Gebäude wurden abgerissen, um von neuen Gebäuden in einer in Europa einzigartigen und für die Periode überaus fortschrittlichen Architektur ersetzt zu werden. Nach der Kapitulation der Italiener im Zweiten Weltkrieg befreiten dem Heeresverband angehörende Griechen die Insel. Es folgte eine zweijährige Besetzung der Insel durch die Engländer, bis Leros schließlich im Jahre 1948 wie die übrigen Inseln der Dodekanes mit Griechenland vereint wurde."

In Lakki the town was reerected; old buildings were demolished to be replaced by new buildings in unique style in Europe and a very progressive fashion for this period. After the capitulation of the Italians in the Second World War (1943) Greeks of the Heeresverband (auxilliary units of the German army, Herresverband is a complex of military units, usually meaning division) freed the island. Two years of the island's occupation by the English followed until Leros, like the other islands of the dodecanese, was finally reunited with Greeece.

A bit confusing, but it seems like there were possibly no German troops or at least no major operations. Perhaps it was used for the parachute troops on Crete some time earlier? Wandalstouring 11:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking that up. It would not have been a major operation, but would possibly have involved special forces. I read somewhere that they were from the Luftwaffe? A parachute group from the Luftwaffe maybe? I did not know they had troops like that in the Luftwaffe. The British troops on Leros surrendered to someone. The operation was so small at that stage of the war that it would probably be very hard to find out about. Tristan benedict 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Colditz Castle

For your information, I've nominated Colditz Castle for a review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Colditz Castle. Please take a look! --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

German military technology during WWII

I'd like to create an article. Would anybody be interested if I made an article on German technology during WWII? Like German technology during WII or German military technology during WWII variations. I'm really interested and also knowledgeable about german military technology so I'm planning to make one about it.

For example, the article would discuss about how German tanks were advanced by 20 years ahead of their time, Germany was the first to develop ejection seats, the first jet plane, etc. Just wondering if anybody would be interested, thanks. Good friend100 15:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but that seems like an awfully broad subject for an article. Even the titles are broad. I would think narrowing the subject might be the way to go, and even get a few more articles out of it. For example, the Germans having the first jet plane is an article in and of itself and Germany's contributions to the ejection seat would go in the article on ejection seats. I see what you're getting at, but it seems like not only would it not be focused enough, but could also walk the line on NPOV. --ScreaminEagle 01:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange Wehrmacht unit sub-categories

Going through Category:Wehrmacht, there seem to be three very unusual categories:

• Category:German units in Africa
• Category:German units in Normandy
• Category:German units in the Arctic

I see three issues here:

1. They're not all Wehrmacht units, so they shouldn't even be categorized here.
2. The names don't indicate that the locations refer to WWII deployments; the "proper" names would be something like "Military units and formations of Germany in World War II deployed in Africa", etc.
3. More generally, given how much the units tended to move around, is there any benefit to trying to categorize them by theater of deployment in the first place?

Comments? Kirill Lokshin 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Afrika Korps might be a useful category because these were selected soldiers who composed the units. German units in the Arctic is influenced by conspiration theories about an ongoing Reich under the ice shelf that time by time needs some bloody encounters with the US Navy. The German units in the Normandy are perhaps notable for their high proportion of Hiwis (foreigners who decided to be willing to fight for the Reich, what could be a considerable improvement to the living conditions of a POW for example) and not quite fit native German troops. Wandalstouring 09:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Ok, Category:Afrika Korps does seem like it would be useful; can we just rename Category:German units in Africa to that?
2. The Normandy relationship seems incidental. While a category related to Hiwis, etc. may be a good idea, I'm not sure this is it (given that it legitimately includes, e.g. 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend).
3. We probably needn't keep the Arctic cat around if it's just a conspiracy-theory-type thing, then.

Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I found out sth. about the Arctic ice shelf. Towards the end of the war the Germans did take over Spitsbergen, killing the complete resistence with one artillery round. Afterwards they stationed some troops there who had to fight hard for survival(eat polar bears and the like) because they were not supplied. Officially they were the last German units to surrender when they were rescued some years after the war. In Greenland were some submarine bases and a submarine with its enigma was captured. However, most stuff is about some ongoing Reich.

OK, I had a another look, it lists all army units deployed north of the Arctic circle (that is still a pretty cold tradition for Gebirgsjäger). However, it is only limited to army units.Wandalstouring 14:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Schleswig Wars

First War of Schleswig and Second War of Schleswig both could use some rewriting. Aside from largely being unreferenced, the descriptions of the wars are often in timeline format. The second war in particular is difficult to follow and goes into excessive detail about skirmishes. Any suggestions on the best way to start improving the articles? Olessi 19:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

user who creates historical maps of Germany

User:52 Pickup/Maps is a gallery of maps of historic parts of 'Germany'. Wandalstouring 12:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Need to cancel POV

Please see: Talk:Battle_of_Jutland#Self_Critiques_And_POV, where I've called for expansion of the post-battle analysis to include the take of the German Navy both immediately, and during the next two decades. As is, this article is currently too oriented on the British experience and virtually ignoring the German side.

I've also suggested some of us research the lessons taught by other Battle ship navies leading up to WW-II, as Western biases tended to discount the Battle of Tsushima, making this event a critical opionion maker determining naval policies for the next two and a half decades. Besides, would be darned interesting to have all that summarized side by side so to speak.

Cheers! // FrankB 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong

Volks-Sturm → do not translate, and take care not to spell it as Volkssturm (why? that is the correct German term) in some context this may refer to the migration period Wrong. Should be written as Volkssturm. It es never used referring to the migration period.--Tresckow 05:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that some of the instructions aren't quite correct; please feel free to fix any that you spot. :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In old German literature 'Volkssturm' is sometimes used in the context of the migration period. You are very unlikely to find it because most people here won't be able to read the old German alphabet used for these texts. Wandalstouring 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

German World War I flying aces

I will try to expand this category and see what i can add since this is my special field of interest. I will also have a look on the existing pages of Warplanes used by the german forces in WWI. Any help would be welcome. --Panth 19:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kampfgruppe translation

For some reason I thought I saw kampfgruppe in the big list of terms, but I was mistaken. Would there be any guidelines on how this should be treated? I prefer to treat it as fully borrowed into English, like panzer and panzergrenadier (hence not italicized or capitalized, plural kampfgruppes). -- Hongooi 11:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

'Kampfgruppen' is the correct German plural. Like with Greek one should stick with the original language's grammar whenever possible. A possible translation would be battlegroups or joint forces (a more modern term for the concept). Wandalstouring 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I realise that kampfgruppen is the German plural, but I disagree that you should stick with the original language grammar. If kampfgruppe is treated as an English loanword, then it should follow the usual English rules for grammar. (I also realise that "usual English rules for grammar" is a bit of an oxymoron.) -- Hongooi 01:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitelly not a grammar specialist, but generally one uses the original grammar with loan words, so indeed Kampfgruppen and not 'kampfgruppes in this case.--Caranorn 12:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Names of divisions

Perusing the stub and start class lists, and searching for various terms, I see numerous inconsistencies in the naming of German divisions. Thus, as of July 10: 7th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht), 10th Infantry Division (Germany), German 243rd Static Infantry Division. Besides the inconsistency, there is also a bias issue: except for a few Panzer division articles, the default for "___ Division (Germany)" is the Wehrmacht version. I recognize the bias toward World War II history among German military historians, and I am guilty of that myself. But, properly, it is not accurate. The Prussian/Imperial army 10th Infantry Division was just as much, if not more, a "10th Infantry Division (Germany)" as the Wehrmacht one.

There do appear to be a few Imperial stubs like 2nd Division (German Empire), but (a) all that has is an order of battle, and (b) it is the pre-1914 mobilization name. On mobilization, the cavalry brigades were detached and the regular divisions became Infantry Divisions. Additional infantry divisions raised in the war were designated Infantry Divisions; Reserve and Landwehr Divisions, though infantry in organization, left infantry out of their name.

The history of the Bundeswehr is also in need of fleshing out; I don't think there are even pages for the Bundeswehr's divisions from the 1950s on.

So I would suggest we need an improved naming convention for German divisions of all eras, which are basically three. The divisions had a continuous history until 1918 (regimental traditions carried over to the Reichswehr, but not divisional), and then one again until 1945. Bundeswehr and NVA divisions did not have official connections to Wehrmacht or Imperial predecessors.

I would suggest the following conventions:

• "# Division (German Empire) for the divisions in existence prior to 1914, with the article explaining their 1914 renaming.
• "# Infantry Division (German Empire)", "# Reserve Division (German Empire)", "# Landwehr Division (German Empire)", "# Cavalry Division (German Empire)", "# Naval Division (German Empire)" for WWI-raised formations. Bavarian divisions would have "Bavarian" as well.
• "# Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)", "# Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)", etc. for World War II Wehrmacht divisions (though this also includes the lower-numbered divisions which existed in the Reichswehr). I think Waffen SS divisions are already distinguished from others.
• "# Panzergrenadier Division (Bundeswehr)", "# Panzer Division (Bundeswehr)", etc. for Bundeswehr divisions (with the article explaining any name changes such as Grenadier to Panzergrenadier over the division's history).

I'm not sure about the NVA. We don't want confusion with the North Vietnamese Army, but "(Nationale Volksarmee)" is somewhat long. Does "# Division (East Germany)" work?

If this naming convention is OK, I can work on making articles for missing divisions and we can move articles to new names. Regards, Airbornelawyer 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with adopting a more systematic naming scheme for German units, and what you have proposed seems workable. As far as East Germany is concerned, (East Germany) seems logical - although, in this case, we might use (West Germany) instead of (Bundeswehr), mainly for the sake of consistency. Carom 15:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with (West Germany) is that the Bundeswehr and most of its units existed post-reunification (although many soon disbanded as Germany rapidly cashed in its peace dividend). It seems to me that Bundeswehr is a familiar enough term, at least to the typical person researching a Bundeswehr unit, just as Wehrmacht is sufficiently familiar to use for World War II units other than Waffen SS. Airbornelawyer 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In which case, your initial proposal seems to cover all the bases. Carom 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an approach like (Prussia)/(Bavaria)/(German Empire) (Reichswehr)/(Weimar Republic) (Wehrmacht)/(Nazi Germany) (NVA)/(GDR) (Bundeswehr)/(FRG) and (Germany) only for recently created units after the unification because until then we can have two German units with the same name. from the rest you are free to choose whether we should stick with the army or the political entity. Wandalstouring 16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oasis companies

Hello. Could anyone here provide me with any information on "Oasis Companies" in the Western Desert Campaign? There's very little information about them on the web and in Google Books, here's what I have found:

Axis History Forum

• 0n 10.04.1941, a batch of Oasen companies were raised using men that had lived, or worked, in Africa. (Tessin lists the numbers 2, 6, 10, 12, 13, the numbers indicating the raising Wehrkreis, and that possibly 13 were raised, numbering 1 – 13.) Also on 10.04.41, the Bataillonstab z.b.V. 300 was raised. It was a small staff consisting of about 10 officers to provide control for the Oasis companies. It was dissolved in 1942.

• The Oasen companies occupied and guarded not only isolated oasis, but also wells, road junctions, etc., and were specially trained and equipped for water collection and treatment operations. Each infantry regiment in North Africa was supposed to have received one company in 1941. Five not so assigned were found directly under the DAK.

• "Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939 – 1945," by Georg Tessin. It's a set of 20 volumes listing short descriptions of all Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS forces, battalion sized and higher, created during WWII, using Feldpost numbers. There is errata (see Dr. Niehorter's site), and I believe the set is avaliable at http://www.militaria-biblio.de/

Anyone have any additional information on these units? Oberiko 17:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Britain GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles and just reviewed Battle of Britain. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I am leaving this message at this task force, along with the other relevant task forces to the article, since the article falls under this topic and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. The article needs some more inline citations, and if added, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of France and Battle of Britain Good Article Reassessment

These two articles has been reviewed as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the articles currently don't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the articles are well-sourced in many areas, other areas are lacking. For that reason, I have listed the articles at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the articles' status. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Please join the discussion to see how the articles can be improved to prevent delisting. If you have any questions about the reassessement, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)