# Talk:Wehrmachtbericht

I'm not sure what a 'private war correspondent' is in the context of Wehrmacht. Can someone clarify? Otherwise, I'd like to delete this statement as it's unclear: "...while private war correspondents were not admitted." --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I will go ahead and remove shortly. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to submit this article for a B-class review, and the only uncited passage is on the report's link to a military commendation. The role as a military commendation is discussed in Mentioned in dispatches, but it's unreliably cited to ww2awards.com and everything2.com (?)

During World War II, the Wehrmacht Supreme Command (OKW) sometimes mentioned individual soldiers in its daily propaganda radio report to the public. This was known as the Wehrmachtbericht and a mention in this report was held in high esteem by German soldiers. In mid 1941 mentions in Wehrmachtbericht were awarded by the soldier's name being included on the Honour Roll of the German Army. Later, after January 1944, inclusion on this list was also sometimes rewarded with an honour clasp, known as the Honour Roll Clasp of the Army.

The Google book searches do not appear to bring up anything meaningful, such as (1) wehrmachtbericht "mentioned in despatches" and (2) wehrmachtbericht commendation. The second search brings up Wette, but the book discusses the report's propaganda role only. I've also tried (3) "wehrmacht report" commendation and (4) "wehrmacht communique" commendation. 
This source Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War mentions the Wehrmacht communique, but in the context of military news only. Similar for the abbreviation, WB.
Anyone has advice or can point to sources? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like I made a mistake by removing the Wehrmachtbericht mentions in Otto Wöhler page. I'll provide a correction. The thing is that I found in the Wiki German page de:Namensnennung im Wehrmachtbericht (Nominal mention in WB) enough information and one reference (Auszeichnungen des Deutschen Reiches 1936-1945: Eine Dokumentation militärischer Verdienst- und Ehrenzeichen by Kurt G. Klietmann, 2002 Motorbuch 11th ed.), which, although unreachable, I cannot doubt to be sufficiently reliable and on the point. Carlotm (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Is Kurt-Gerhard Klietmann an RS? The article that you linked to uses him as the only source. The Klietmann's de.wiki article includes the following: 

Klietmann founded a private "Scientific Institute for Phaleristics" where he served.
As a guest of the Department of "Military History" of SS veterans organization HIAG, Klietmann lectured  at the organisation's 11th national conference in 1964 on the state of development and tradition of of the Waffen-SS. He called for the involvement of SS veterans in re-creating the history of the Waffen-SS, "similar to Homer's Iliad and Odyssey". He published apologist articles in HIAG's publications.
During WWII he served in a propaganda capacity (?) in the de:Deutsche Gesellschaft für Wehrpolitik und Wehrwissenschaften
Motorbuch-Verlag appears to be a somewhat questionable.
So I would consider the source to be WP:QS, or am I mistaken? Is this the only source available? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Klietmann is not an RS but, I may be wrong, not on this question. People who have a perverted vision of historical events so that it can second their political agenda, may still hold knowledge of certain facts. Surely it is unpalatable to introduce a source that, all in all, will never shine. But we may be able to bypasse mister Klietmann. On this page the original printed location of von Brauchitsch's document can be found (HVBl [Heeresverordnungsblatt - Army Orders and Gazette] 06.05.1940, part C, 27 ed., p. 189, n. 520). We need only to ascertain the trueness of this piece of information.  Carlotm (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
http://en.ww2awards.com/ is non RS; it's mostly a forum. What's surprising is the lack of sources. If indeed:
—"This is a very special honour. Thus only deeds will be recognized wich (sic) call such a special attention from others that they justify a public mentioning (sic) in front of the German people"—
then surely there would be some RS sources to state that? The web site does not appear to be able to offer a proper translation even. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Carlotm: Any luck? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry K.e.coffman, but for me the question is already settled. These Wehrmachtberichte existed and the mentions there were considered an award, of the lowest level, I suppose. The interested parties may buy the volumes at Amazon eg. Carlotm (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur; if this was indeed an award, then it was mostly created for propaganda purposes. I will move it here for storage.

Military commendation: The Wehrmachtbericht references were established by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH) on 27 April 1940 as a military commendation.
K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A more important question, though, is why do we love, in en:WP, to entertain the reader by listing awards after awards? French (intermittently) and Italian WPs follow the same track of ours, whereas Spanish and German WPs are much more humble: in a fast, and narrow, look around I haven't found any of these award chapters. Carlotm (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no clue. For me, the award does not make the person, it's the action that has led to the award. If secondary RS do not cover this action, then the person, no matter whether they exhibit "extreme battlefield braver or successful military leadership", is not notable. In articles on WWII military men, listing WWI awards is superfluous, IMO, unless they are Adolf Hitler, with his Iron Cross, or Erwin Rommel, who showed extreme determination in getting the Pour Le Merite. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Cross-posted with: Quoting from Wehrmachtbericht vs London Gazette at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wehrmachtbericht/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 11:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this one over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
All issues addressed
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
All issues addressed
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
All issues addressed
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
No issues: sources appear solid
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
All issues addressed
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Concerns over comprehensiveness addressed
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
No tangential material
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
No issues
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No recent issues with stability
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Images appear to be appropriately tagged
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
All my concerns have been taken care of, passing this now.


### Specific comments
Production
"Generaloberst" should be either linked or explained. 
I simplified it to "general". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
"Commanded by General Hasso von Wedel, the department oversaw the growing number of propaganda companies of the Propagandakompanie (de), the propaganda wing of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, attached to the fighting troops." I'm having difficulty understanding this sentence. Let's break it down: so the Wehrmacht has a propaganda department, which Wedel is the leader of. This department oversees separate propaganda companies, which are part of a separate propaganda wing of the Wehrmacht. The Waffen SS also has propaganda companies. Each of these companies is attached to a fighting unit. Is this understanding correct? Based on your answer, I'll try to suggest a clearer version.
Yes, this is correct. Should have probably used bolded English term originally, as it's clearer:
Commanded by General Hasso von Wedel, the department oversaw the growing number of propaganda companies of the Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops (de), the propaganda wing of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, attached to the fighting troops."
"Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops" is the name for the propaganda wing that I saw in literature. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay. In that case, I would suggest breaking "attached to the fighting troops." into a separate sentence, and saying that each of the propanganda companies was attached to a fighting troop.
"and communicated them directly to Goebbels." So the communiques were shown to Goebbles at the meeting?
A representative of the Propaganda ministry attended the meetings. I don't believe Goebles personally attended. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
In which case, I am confused by this sentence: what does the meeting have to do with the communiques being shown to Goebbels? Can this be separated?
"and was versed both in the military and the propaganda realms." a) I think you mean "well-versed," and b) I think the "therefore" is not appropriate: surely the commentator was chosen for their knowledge of the military and propaganda, because he had a line to the public?
Yes, that's correct. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
In this case, I would suggest "and had to be well-versed in both military and propaganda matters."
'the task of adding commentary" So the reports were based in fact? Where did the factual material come from?
The materials came from the propaganda companies up to Wedel. Then they were massaged by Wedel, to produce the official communique. Then additional commentary was added, I assume, for the lay listener. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I think a sentence about this should be added, more or less as you describe it here.
I've restructured and expanded to address the above concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Much better, thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Goals
I don't have specific prose concerns at the moment, but I think the section would read a lot better if it started out with the sentence about home front mobilization.
Stalingrad
"Goebbels issued instructions" to whom?
"Goebbels had been aware that the official policy on suppressing the news was inadequate" I am confused by this. Inadequate for what?
This is still a bit of an issue. I could guess that it means "inadequate with respect to preventing the civilians from learning the truth of the matter," but it should be clarified.
I revised and expanded this section, plus others, using a new source that I found: Goebbels: A Biography (Google books). It provides more info on the interplay between Goebbels's propaganda efforts and what was coming out of the Wehrmacht, which presents a more complex picture than I had originally understood it. Goebbels often played the role of a "realist", having to temper down the military's presentation of events. I hope it's more comprehensive now. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Better, but the new prose has some issues. "The policy of the news blackout was clearly backfiring." has very heavy editorial voice, and is not very clear: why was it backfiring? Perhaps just remove it.
Similarly, you can simply remove "All the while" and leave the rest of the sentence.
I'd prefer you replaced the "Goebbels launched the program" with "Goebbels launched his effort" as it does not seem to have been a formal program.
"Since then the state propaganda" will be a lot clearer as "The state propaganda after that..."
Revised. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
"The communiqués since focused" again, not clear. I presume you mean "The communiques transmitted after [date] focused on ..." in which case the text should be amended.
I've edited for clarity. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Images
The second image should begin, IMO, with an explanatory caption saying "an image produced by the propaganda dep. in 194X etc etc" before mentioning the official caption.
Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Lede
Lede is generally fine, but I'm not a fan of the phrase " failed to reflect realities on the ground." They didn't fail: they very deliberately distorted ground realities, unless I'm misreading a lot of the article...
"they often failed to reflect realities on the ground or proved too exuberant" Is still very odd usage. Why not just be forthright, and say "they often exaggerated the success of the German army" or something to that effect? "Exuberant" is a term you would use to describe a child at a birthday party, not so much a war communique...
Revised & added citation. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


### General comments
In general, I think this is a fairly solid article, and the relatively few prose issues I have raised above. However, there are some issues with comprehensiveness/necessary background. I'll leave you to address these: please let me know when you are through.
I believe I've addressed them in the recent series of edits. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
First, with respect to background, there are some terms that should be explained, even though they are linked, because they are central to the understanding of the article. These include the following: home front, total war, clean Wehrmacht, ministry of propaganda, Flensburg government. All of these could use a couple of sentences of explanation.
"I've provided in-article explanations and more specific linking, such as to the German home front. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Second, with respect to comprehensiveness: if I step back and try to understand the big picture that the article presents, there are some things I do not entirely understand. First, the actual "process" of production; who provided raw material? Who wrote? Who edited? Who broadcast? Second, what level of control did Goebbels have over the material? Finally, and most importantly, what have historians/analysts said about the role/impact of the communiques after the war?
I've restructured and added material to address these questions. It was not quite clear before that although Reich Ministry of Propaganda was responsible for disseminating the communiques, it did not draft or edit them, which was the responsibility of the OKW's Propaganda Department. Goebbels influenced and provided guidance, but did not have the final say. Hence the materials that the Ministry authored or instructions they sent to the press were at times at odds with both the Wehrmachtbericht and the materials put out by Hitler's press chief. The literature explains it by pointing to conflicting and overlapping "networks" of propaganda, and the chaotic nature of the NS regime itself. I hope this is clearer now. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Much better, thank you. Only a few minor things remain.
There is some inconsistency with source formatting. All the book should be treated the same: if you mention the country of publication for one, you should for the others, too. Likewise city, unless that's not available. The Bibliography should not have page numbers.
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, in my view the urls for books should be to google books, where available, because the function of the url is to allow somebody to verify the text, not to encourage them to buy it. If they want to buy it they could find the link easily enough.
I do like linking to the publishers (sort of "official pages") so that readers can evaluate the source, if desired. I don't see this as encouraging to buy, but to provide more information on the source. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps, but googlebooks allows them to access some of the text, which publishers do not. I cannot compel you, though.
More serious issue: this result is a problem. You should be careful to avoid this in the first place, but please rephrase.
Reworded. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Just want to make sure you have seen these, as you seem to be active, but not here. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Apologies. I believe I've addressed the issues that remained. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
No worries. One specific comment about Goebbels remains; I also want to give the lede a second look. Vanamonde (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I was approached by various editors to address the omission of the concept of the "named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht" as a military award. As the article in its previous state had failed WP:GACR criterion 3, it is not broad in coverage. The concept of the award characteristic of the "named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht" is based on Felix Römer (see German Historical Institute London stated in his book Kameraden. Die Wehrmacht von innen. Note, I will not be available to comment on possible discussions for at least 4 weeks. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Moved comment here from GA review page. This is the correct venue; the GA review has been completed. Vanamonde (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was that some of the content was about the German WW2 awards in general, not about this specific distinction. I also removed Murawski: as a former propagandist, he does not appear to be a credible source on the topic. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Does not quite match the source". I would be happy to discuss further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
+ diff; this has an appearance of being WP:COATRACK, as the statement is about the awards in general, not the named mention in the Wehrmachtbericht. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman While your edit of the first part of the upper half ("played a critical role of utmost importance ({{lang|de|''überagende Bedeutung''}}) for all German soldiers. Römer stated that military decorations in general created respect and symbolized soldiery masculinity) is excellent (as it removes the pathos present in the decree and used by Murawski for his description of the award), Murawski was working for the Federal Archive and his study was officially published by the Archive. It is true that former German generals/regime staff and historians working for the Federal Archive created quite a few embellished (if not revisionist-ish) battle reports and analyses up to the 1960s, but Murawski is halfway accurate regarding the content of the actual decree and the purpose of the (revised/specified) policy outlined in the decree, well, you may have to deduct those sections, where he details the award with a lot of pathos. If it comes to awards then you should check out Klietmann's work: Auszeichnungen des Deutschen Reiches 1936–1945. Eine Dokumentation ziviler und militärischer Verdienst- und Ehrenzeichen. (11. Auflage. Motorbuch-Verlag, 2004, ISBN 978-3-87943-689-7, S. 214–215.) His scientific "Ordens-Lexikon" known as the Standardwerk "Klietmann-Neubecker", which he authored on behalf of the International Society for scientific phaleristics, is the core literature in that particular branch.
What's missing in the current description is the set of preconditions for getting such mention. IIRC, Klietmann lists two "qualifiers", where - before the start of heavy combat/a major engagement - 1) an individual either had to be the leader of a shock or recon platoon that had made enemy contact and captured a considerable amount of weapons or enemy soldiers under enemy fire twice, or where the leader captured or located enemy documents - "furthermore inflicting" (probably meaning "resulting in") damaging operations on the enemy (based on that intel). Individual actions of regular recruits/soldiers or NCOs would only be mentioned, if those were well above-average - if not /decisive/crucial.
During 2) major/heavy combat operations, commanders/leaders of all ranks could be mentioned, but their personal efforts had to influence a given operation in a fashion that made the outcome particularly valuable to the "leadership" (Supreme Command?). Personal engagements/CQB of individual leaders (on the front) were considered, too, but then they had to be extraordinary actions and their consequences had to be particularly valuable to the leadership.
You removed the sections packed with pathos, but the actual conditions for awarding a mention are somewhat blurry in the current article, imho. GeeGee (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
If you'd like to expand the article based on available RS, I would obviously not object. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, Goebbels was working behind the scenes to advance his program of mobilisation of the population for the "total war", using the impending defeat at Stalingrad as a rallying cry. Getting the go-ahead from Hitler, Goebbels launched the effort in the late winter of 1943."
The highlighted part does not reflect the historical course of things, nor does it mention Goebbels' infamous speech (February 1943) at Berlin's Sportpalast. With the speech, Goebbels hoped to mobilize the population and push those members of the government/regime who were in charge of the wartime economy to reduce the production of luxury goods and a range of other civilian products, and to extend the recruitment guidelines, so that additional production capacities could be freed for additional armament production efforts and the production of goods for the military and a vital share of the factory workers be recruited to raise new divisions. Since Hitler feared the emergence of civilian protests, the civil production was not significantly changed for months and recruitment regulations only slightly changed, more women started to take over jobs in the armament industry, though, plus an increasing number of slave workers were forced to work in key facilities. Starting in February 1942 already, Albert Speer had started to revise vital parts of the processes in the armament industry, though. Besides radicalizing the German population, Goebbels speech prepared the general population for future hardships, but failed to encourage regional NSDAP leaders (Gauleiter, pl.)  to reduce their spendings on political events and luxury goods and/or to reduce their overall budgets. Despite hoping to become a member of the Joint Tripartite War Economy Committee (members: Bormann, Keitel and Lammers), Goebbels was not granted to influence the economical conditions/plans. Only after the Normandy landings turned out to be successful and after the Soviets had crushed the Germany Army Group Center, Goebbels allied with Speer in July 1944 to convince Hitler to renew the "total war" idea, which was put into practice, eventually. Goebbels was appointed "Chief Representative for the total war effort" and equipped with all corresponding mandates, along with the right to personally report to Hitler, as a result. Goebbels ordered to sift through the armament production workforce and pressed 700,000 workers into service. Speer had already raised the number of slave workers in 1943, with another hefty increase in early 1944 (and spring/summer 1944?). GeeGee (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

In re: this passage:
On 16 January 1943, the dispatch finally mentioned that the 6th Army was fighting the enemy "on all sides", thus acknowledging the encirclement, but little was said about the situation in subsequent reports. Meanwhile, Goebbels was working behind the scenes to advance his program of mobilisation of the population for the "total war", using the impending defeat at Stalingrad as a rallying cry. Getting the go-ahead from Hitler, Goebbels launched the effort in the late winter of 1943. The state propaganda after that focused on the home-front mobilization, the civilian contribution to the German war effort, with this message continuing through the rest of the war.

I don't currently have access to Uziel (2008) and Longerich (2015),  but, to the best of my recollection, the contents reflects the sources. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

A now-banned POV-pushing bully IP attempted to make an assertion that the Wehrmachtbericht was a reliable source in a discussion-turned-argument on a "panzer ace" talk page, and edited this article to lend credibility to that perspective. the sources they brought up, however, could possibly be included if presented in the appropriate context as a view coming from inside the propaganda machine. Here they are, sloppily copied over from their edit:

 Mewnst (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)