Talk:Werwolf

message: I deleted the section "similair organizations":
- The Jagdverbände were no "stay-behind" but the commandos of the Waffen-SS (like the Special Air Services of the British or the Brandenburger of the Wehrmacht). Simply check Wikipedia or Google. They had nothing in common with the werewolf.
- The Bundschuh was a locally hatched plan that never got over paper-ware status and had no effect whatsoever. I can't see any reasons for mentioning it. 141.13.240.31 07:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original Bundschuh was a revoulutionary movement in Germany from 1493-1517. 141.13.8.14 13:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: Werewolf = wolf man bcz in English "were" once meant "man" (whence - see at least any Merriam-Webster dict that includes etymology --also world, from "were" and "alt", meaning "man's age" or "human realm".)
Wehr is unrelated, with its senses clustering around "force" and "protection". 
The implausible name should be enuf to show this is a hoax, IMO. 
--Jerzy(t) 18:14, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
It is not a hoax, but the etymology was indeed inaccurate.  I tried to fix it.
--Greg Kuperberg 15:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Greg, I'm going to have to hunt around for my references, but ISTR that the two names were due to the discovery that some pre-war communist group had called itself "Werwolf", so there was a half-hearted attempt to change the name. Or something like that. Securiger 08:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utter Nonsense 

message: I think that the factual accuracy problem has been addressed, and the Iraq distraction has also been handled better.  So I am removing the accuracy warning.  --Greg Kuperberg 14:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy 

message: The mayor of Aachen was killed by an SS-Commando as a result of an order given by Heinrich Himmler. This was not a spontaneous action by locals. 
Nikolai Berzarin did die in a traffic accident – driving a motorbike is still unsafe today, imagine how it must have been in 45- or he was assassinated by Stalin if you prefer a conspiracy theory.  
The part about Major John Poston seaks for itself. 
Bottom line this whole section is full of unknowns, unprovens and speculation, not information. 
Markus Becker02 18:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't delete or revert anything that displeases you without providing support for your opinion.  The author you are deleting is a known author and academic, and we know nothing about you that would indicate that you're more knowledgeable about this topic.  Explain your position here, as described in WP:XFD before deleting anything Hoserjoe 06:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you bother to read the US Army´s official history of the occupation of Germany? One get´s a somewhat different picture of the so-called german insugency. Furtheremore none, but one historian makes the claim a german insugency existed in the first place and last but not least all the politicians started to talk about it only after the shit hit the fan in Iraq. So what about you providing some facts to back up your claims?Markus Becker02 09:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Penzberg massacre can hardly count as a werwolf operation, because it was conducted before the war ended in german held territory.  The local city council wanted to surrender, the Nazis found out and the Army executed eight people. That some loacal Nazis led by an SA official killed anoher eight. No insurgents here.Markus Becker02 09:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your disrespectful deletions. Please don't abuse the Wikipedia forum in this manner.  You are being destructive assuming that your opinion is correct.   Please read the welcome page to learn more about editing etiquette. Hoserjoe 06:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, as long as there are no facts to back up something, it does not belong here. So give us facts, like dates, names, units and places. So far these newspaper articles are just making some unspecific claims. Disprove the US Army´s official history and dozen of historians!Markus Becker02 10:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operations 

message: In a pervious history I have read that Werwolf was a "fiasco". This stands to reason. Hitler and Goebbels were often victims of their own propaganda. Naziism had a lot less staying power than they wanted to believe. They may have thought that they could duplicate the effectiveness of the partisans efforts against the Nazis on the eastern front in reverse. While in some parts of the Soviet Union the Nazis were initially greated as liberators, e.g. some part of the Ukraine, the populous would have soon been disabused of their mistake. The vast majority of citizens in countries under Nazi domination wanted them out, and many risked and/or gave-up their lives fighting the occupation as partisans and irregulars. At that late stage of the war (1945) Hitler was grasping at straws, his thinking more and more fantastic (which he was prone to all along). If Hitler, Goebbels, and other prominent Nazis thought that their own people would rise up behind enemy lines in the same way, they were sadly mistaken. Werwolf was little more than a fanciful gimmick borne of desperation. Once the Nazis were gone people were relieved. There was even a party in the Füher bunker after Hitler's suicide, and an air of euphoria. Comparsons are odius, but are not Bush & Rice victims of their own propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.178.105.81 (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Werwolf exagerated 

message: I was wondering which was the correct name. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that it was "Wehrwolf", which was a pun. The "Wehr" part means something along the lines of "struggle" or "defense".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.26.175 (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Werwolf vs. Wehrwolf 

message: Wolverine is in German Vielfraß.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.236.140 (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolverine 

message: I have deleted this, because it's false:
Also worth mentioning in this regard are the so-called Forest Brothers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, an anti-Soviet guerrilla movement largely consisting of ex-Waffen SS unit soldiers.
Forest Brothers movement consisted largely of local patriots, and not of former SS members.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.29.148 (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Simply not true

message: There are a number of factoids in there that simply can't be true. For example, a supposed "destruction of Bruchsal for SS activities" is cited - Bruchsal was bombarded by the USAF, true, but there can't be any connection with any orders drawn up "in April 1945" : the bombardment was on March 1st (aimed at the main railway node in the region), followed by French troops capturing the city on April 2nd. US forces didn't enter the town until early April either, and there was simply nothing left to "destroy". The section also indiscriminately mixes supposed COIN actions by US, Soviet, British, Canadian and French forces. Considering the above on Bruchsal, i'd suggest a second source being found for every single factoid in that section (all only sourced on Biddiscombe), or the entire section summarily removed.
89.56.147.190 (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's clearly a POV bias in this section also... I just removed text "Due to harsh repression such as that" and cleaned up the sentence it was from so it was grammatically correct following the text removal. I'd thus agree that unless cross-referencing confirms these assertations within a reasonable time frame, they should be deleted. 124.169.203.4 (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "War Crimes" section

message: I have added text explaining the connection to the basis for the reprisals and how they were connected to the Werwolf. This latest revert by  shows that the user is acting out of reflex. How is it that information taken from a book that solely deals with the topic of Werwolf, the biggest and pretty much unique modern book on the topic, from a chapter entitled Western Allied and Soviet Reactions to the Werwolf, information that had been complemented with background information on Allied fears and how these affected actions from that same chapter, is deleted without even an explanation at talk? This latest deletion where the user also deleted requests for citations and a "further reading" list shows that the editor can not be in earnest. I will expect a good explanation or I will seek administrator intervention.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply, "reprisals" are not in direct connection with Werwolf activity. In article is clearly stated, that "A number of instances of post-war violence have been attributed to Werwolf activity, but none have been proven. If there was not Werfolf activity, there wasn't  "reaction" against them, understand? Again, none of cited "reprisals" were in direct connection with Werwolf organisation. Please, move your text in another article, as "Postwar reprisals in Germany".--Yopie (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: May I remind you that the sentence you site comes from a wikipedia article, is unsourced, and it might even be you who wrote it? the sentence you quote is actually worse than useless. The sourced text I inserted on the other hand, that you deleted, comes from the authoritative work on the topic, and relates to the topic. Maybe the reprisals were not always for werwolf activity, it does not matter, since I've shown that the reprisal policy was planned before the occupation since the allies expected werwolf activity, and also relevant since the allies when conducting reprisals believed they were reprising against werwolf. It is therefore very relevant to this article.--Stor stark7 Speak 10:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is about Werwolf, not about unconnected replisals. A you explicitly says "the reprisals were not always for werwolf activity", so, please, find what actions of Allied military were connecdet with werwolfs.--Yopie (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are promoting a very rigid way of writing articles, I would dare to say narrow-minded. The events are more than sufficiently connected to werewolf in that the soldiers followed orders developed for dealing with werewolf, and the orders were carried out in belief they were dealing with werewolf, which in some cases they probably were. That makes them very relevant as context for an article on werwolf. You have absolutely no support in Wiki policy for your deletion, please desist in your disruptive behavior.--Stor stark7 Speak 23:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reprisal section

message: Have seen have one! So called Werewolf I.D. Badge Skull on Black shiled with a "W" at bottom! In copper color is this for real or just a hype to make money? Pin is about an inch long.Thanks! WEREWOLFID (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Werewolf "I.D. Badges"? Real or just a hype? 

message: Although Biddiscombe (1998) claims that the towns of Sögel, Jarmin (Jarmen) and Bruchsal were "demolished" by Allied troops in reprisal for SS or Werwolf activities, a search of the histories of these towns in both English and German does not confirm this. Bruchsal was bombed on March 1, 1945 and much of the town was destroyed at that time. However, film footage from May 20 1945 shows a German war criminal being hanged there, and one wonders if "U.S. combat troops" would still have destroyed the town at that late date, after the war. Anyone have any evidence for this besides Biddiscombe?  Cmacauley (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claims of Allied reprisals 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Werwolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928035451/http://www.talkingproud.us/International090103.html to http://www.talkingproud.us/International090103.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is a mess. Werwolf was partly a propaganda label, and partly a plan for commando operations. It was never a mass underground movement leading all Germans fighting a rearguard action against the Allies. The name meant different things at different times. The article needs to be more logically arranged.
The statement that "as it became clear that the reputedly impregnable Alpine Fortress, from which operations were to be directed by the Nazi leadership in the event that the rest of Germany was occupied, was yet another delusion. Werwolf was converted into a terrorist organisation in the last few weeks of the war" is confused and wrong. The Alpine Fortress had nothing to do with Werwolf. Werwolf was no converted into a terrorist organization, it was always a military formation.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mess 

message: Preserving here by proving this link; pls see edit summary for rationale. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture section  

message: Distance to Grevenbroich is 11 Kilometers; to Erkelenz about 30 Kilometers. Ergo: Hülchrath-Castle is near Grevenbroich. Grevenbroich was town of district. Fibe101 (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hülchrath 

message: At some point this article was rewritten to give supreme importance to a single American post-war historian that claims that Radio Werwolf was not even connected to the Werwolf units. Seeing that Radio Werwolf announded Werwolf actions even before the surrender of Germany, this seems unhistorical and unlikely. There is no documentation to show that "it was an independent station operated by Goebbels", this is pure speculation or rather invention. Other historians don't follow this view, yet why are they ignored in favor of the single one? A good article would discuss this as a "controversy" and not put it as an established, known or agreed-upon fact. 190.16.115.133 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhistorical rewriting 

message: This article omits mention of a more serious threat (well, relatively speaking) to the Allies in Germany, the presence of fanatical SS members & small groups of soldiers who either were left behind to sabotage Allied supply lines, or refused to surrender, or simply were separated from their units & preyed upon farmers for their food. (Biddiscombe, used in this article, documents their activities which were at their apex in April/May 1945, & gradually in the following months.) The existence of these small groups, most of which disintegrated before the end of winter 1945/6, were never a serious threat to the occupying armies, but made it dangerous for soldiers to travel thru parts of the countryside alone or in small groups. Supposedly these continued in their activities as late as 1947, increasingly motivated to survive & avoid justice than to promote Fascism.Perhaps this would be better discussed in a separate article, but the German army -- especially the SS units -- did not uniformly & obediently acquiesce to defeat, surrender, & possible punishment for their war crimes.  -- llywrch (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other resistance to the Allied occupiers