Talk:Volkssturm

message: This is a mis-link, via a redirect.  Does anyone know if this is the the correct term in translation, and whether we have an article under some other name to the formation in question?  Alai 09:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Home Army]] 

message: Didn't Goebbels play a large part in the formation of the volksstrum? Gavin Scott 08:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goebbels

message: Doesn't the word 'storm trooper' carry a bit too much meaning?
I mean these were mostly youngsters, elders and people who did not want to be there not the elité troops you expect when you read 'storm trooper'.
:It was the name of the unit. We can't change that, the article explains the nature of the Volksstrum. Gavin Scott 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: “Storm trooper” wasn’t the name of the organization—“storm trooper” is at best a generic term for members of the SS; Volkssturmhad little if anything to do with the SS and its name means little more than something like people’s assault [group]; Sturm means “storm” in the sense of an assault, but members of the Volkssturm were hardly storm troopers, all of them being civilians and either young kids, old men, or men unfit for normal military duty. What’s the source for rendering Volkssturm “storm troopers”? If none can be cited, or the only sources for the statement are unreliable, the statement should be removed from the article; see WP:ATT. —–Jim_Lockhart 20:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People's Storm trooper ?

message: I think the current picture is misleading and inappropriate. It is misleading because it implicates that Volkssturm members were fanatics that rather died than surrender (to US troops). For the Eastern Front it is true most people rather fought to the death than surrender (which would likely mean death as well), on the Western Front this was exceptional (AFAIK). The article also doesn't emphasize enough the last-resort function of the Volkssturm. German wartime propaganda already stated the best weapon of the Volkssturm was their will to fight, and even in reality this was true, again mostly for the Eastern Front. I think it should be emphasized Volkssturm members fought more to save what was left of their country from the Soviets than being Nazi-fanatics, apart from simply being conscripted. Wiki1609 14:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: I have no idea why people always want to translate Sturm with storm. It sounds absurd because it is. Try to graps the idea that the same word could be used in different context with entirely different meanings. Volkssturm was not about the weather, it was about combat, so why would assault not be obvious?
Also, "folk" seems to be a bit fancy where "people" is a much better fit. I might be wrong here, but I don't think so.  --91.55.254.174 (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the concept of "The German People" was then often summed up (at least in Germany) as "folk" (Volk).  The Volk of that place and era isn't quite the happy-go-lucky term of --say-- 60's American "folk music".  Volk was more like spirit of the Vikings than of Peter, Paul, and Mary.   Volk was a specific sub-set of ways to say "people" --different from say Leute or Mensch (just as, I suppose, one could say "the people", "the masses", "the street", or "a mob" and have slightly different nuances of meaning each way).  Literally, Sturm is "storm" (musical Sturm und Drang etc) but it was used the same as "assault" in military terminology.  Thus Sturmabteilung is equally-often called "storm" as "assault"  detachment/section.  Both ways work; one way is a more literal transliteration while the other rephrases toward a perhaps more satisfying English translation.  One tends to hear of German "stormtroopers" but not so much of "assault-troopers". Overall, I've usually thought it best (or at least most educational) to list both ways: the literal transliteration of the word parts  and also the rephrased English understanding of the term.  I'd say "Luftschiff (zeppelin, air ship --literally 'lift ship' in the aerial sense of 'lift')" but that's just how things go in my version of an ideal world.  Cramyourspam (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we translate Sturmgewehr as "assault rifle", not "storm rifle". --89.27.36.41 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sturm could also be rendered as "unit" as in the SA rank Sturmmann. Similar to Schutz being a rank/unit/gun/gunner(shooter). The Volkssturm could be rendered Peoples Units. Maybe compare it a unit like the Khyber Rifles where rifle is both the weapon and the unit.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sturm = Assault 

message: How does the Walter Doenicke suicide picture have any bearing on this article? I can not see where the article loses anything without it. I also notice that articles of important Nazi functionaries, i,e, Joseph Goebbels, Rudolf_Hess, et al do not have them but they are available. If there is no obection I will remove it soon.--100.34.75.219 (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed again as it adds nothing to the article. PaPiker (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Walter Doenicke picture

message: German wikipedia says "waffenfähigen Männer im Alter von 16 bis 60 Jahren -- ages 16 to 60 -- which contradicts the English article (from age 13).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.155.84.7 (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistranslation

message: The cited interview was published in 1976. Need I explain that Der Spiegel's online edition doesn't go back that far? Its web site confirms that such an interview was published, and another site independently translates Heidegger's remarks. Another Wikipedia article explains the background of the interview and why it was published 10 years after it happened. This is verified. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You argument is immaterial. Since the source was not verifiable in terms of attribution beyond the claim that it was published (it cannot be read as stated in Der Spiegel).  www.ditext.com is NOT a reliable source either.  Moreover, Wikipedia citing itself is not considered an acceptable substantiation, especially when the information is available from a trustworthy source. As you'll note, I cited a Harvard University Press book. Matter closed. --Obenritter (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not offering these as substitutes for the Spiegel source, only trying to persuade you in your skepticism that the description of it is accurate. If you cannot get to a library to read the interview off microfilm, that is your problem and not Wikipedia's. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously don't understand proper academic substantiation. If you wanted to cite Der Spiegel properly, you'd have the author, article title, issue number, page number, and other identifying info from the ARTICLE itself and not an online source that generically refers back to the original source. Many of these online pages are unreliable. Nobody every claimed that Der Spiegel wasn't reliable—the problem stems from the substitute method you employed.--Obenritter (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Heidegger

message: Hi Obenritter, can you specify the details you believe are vital to the introduction? Stara Marusya (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant details 

message: The suggestion was made that a recent edit (20:15, 22 August 2023) was too broad and needed to go to the talk page first. I disagree and believe we have all seen far more extensive changes to articles promulgated without any talk page discussions. The only substantively new material presented, regarding the leadership of the Volkssturm, was made to remove existing incorrect and unsourced information (Goebbels was not the national leader of the Volkssturm, "ceremonial" or otherwise) and this new material was properly referenced to a reliable source. Most of the remaining changes were organizational and formatting changes, reorganizing the existing material in an overly-long section on "origins and organization" into four more concise segments with more descriptive headings. For example, four existing scattered comments on the leadership were consolidated into one section on leadership. I disagree that the edit was not helpful or constructive, and I don't believe it should be rejected out of hand, though any editor is always free to make any desired improvements. At a minimum, the incorrect and unsourced information on the leadership should be removed and replaced with the correctly sourced information. I welcome any comments from interested editors.Historybuff0105 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking support for recent edit