Talk:Military history of Germany

message: == Improvments == List your improvments here, like what you changed or what content you added. Weirdperson11 01:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

message: It seems odd to me that all the sections besides the last one are in bullet form while the last one was in paragraph form. It seems like a good idea to change this so they're all the same. --kralahome 02:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be changed to paragraph form where possible Astrokey44 04:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bullets 

message: "Over time the hypothesised Proto-Germanic Language (PGmc) split into four main groups.
1. The Western Groups: gave rise to the Friesland dialects, English and Dutch
2. The Central Groups: gave rise to the modern High German and Platt Deutsch as well as many regional dialects.
3. The Eastern Groups: (now extinct) gave rise to the Gothic languages and related groups (eg Heruli)
4. The Northern Group: gave rise to the languages of modern Scandinavia."
*Anon user User:202.165.89.242 (who I think is a new user) just added some sections to the article, some of them were good additions, but is this detail about languages necessary at the start in an article about the military of germany? Astrokey44 10:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Astrokey. While the info is interesting, it is not necessary in this context. I invite everyone with expertise on the matter to rewrite it in a more suited way as to the subject of this article. Shauri  smile! 15:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given the article a new introduction per your suggestions.  My own expertise is strongest for the period 1789 - 1914.  Unfortunately it's more political, economic, and cultural than military.  I may contribute more if no one else steps in. Durova 16:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  language detail? 

message: I edited the previous 'Hussite' text rather extensively, my reason being that although it was good information, it was probably written more from the 'czech' rather than 'german' perspective, and some of the detail (notably the Joan D'arc reference) would fit better in the Hussite article. Any thoughts? (Averscha 11:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Roman Empire 

message: Could someone help out with the details of nineteenth century German unification?  It's been years since I studied this in college and I've been looking for sources to refresh my memory.  The sources I'm finding on the Web slide over the 1850 - 1866 period.  We leap from Friedrich Wilhelm IV refusing the crown of a united Germany to Bismarck leading an expansionist united Germany into war against Denmark.  Durova 18:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the most important fact for this article in that case was that this stage of German unification was peaceful. Durova 17:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Unification 

message: The one part that still needs serious attention is ancient Germany.  Anyone up to the task?  Durova 03:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: one of the problems is its difficult to define who exactly you should include - germanic tribes who invaded rome? or just the things that happened in the present day boundaries of germany Astrokey44 04:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient Germany

message: The Germans never succeeded in their strategic objective of splitting the allied lines (hence the reference to a 'bulge'). The last edit seemed to indicate that they did, so reworded that change. If there was another reason for splitting that sentence, pls advise (Averscha 12:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Second World war

message: Does anyone know what German army units are currently in Afghanistan? Chwyatt 08:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany army in Afghanistan today

message: This article seems to have a strange historical twist ... If one were exact than the military history of Germany, starts in 1871 with the founding of (a unified) Germany. Of course this would be a bit strange so I myself think its logical this article also treats the historical German states and political entities with a large German presence as a part of Germany's military history. But to treat or make it seem as if the Germanic tribes are a real part of Germany's military history strikes me as a bit off ... if no one objects I'll remove them soon.
Rex 16:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the regular editor(s): 

message: Cannot believe this is B class when the link between the text and the external links are arbitrary. I would reserve B status until the REF tag had been used.... and maybe the cite tag Victuallers 10:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: b class

message: :Image:Bundeswehr logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bundeswehr logo.gif

message: I seriously question that this article significantly covers german military history. You get the impression that the author used this platform for allied postwar propaganda more than anything else. I assume the author is british by the way he is emphasizing German-British engagements and using words like "the germans underestimated the quality of british aircrafts" and "the powerful british navy" is pure feelgood jingoism.
These are only some points that should be taken into consideration:
The first parts are confusing by throwing around all kinds of germanic tribes instead on focusing on germanic military tactics of these tribes.
There should be a section which explains the significance of the medieval "German School of Fencing" for european combat strategy.
 
There is no mention of the german tradition of weapon and armor production which supplied large parts of europe including France and England from medieval times to this day.
There should be a section which emphasizes that modern german military tactics including coup de main etc, were successfully adopted by many countries including the USA and the UK 
The section dealing with WW2 should exclude or at least reduce the Battle of Britain and instead focus on the much more intense operations in the east which are unique for their strategies in modern tank warfare and their overall scale. The author tends to write the history from the end and thereby deliberatly omits the succesfull tactics which lead to the conquest of europe.
In addition, german military innovations like "Führung von vorne" and the concept of the modern infantryman should be included. 
some more edits:
"The British Expeditionary Force and other allied units were driven back to the coast at Dunkirk, but managed to escape with most of their troops when Germany made a mistaken decision not to attack with tanks" should be changed into:
"Guderians tank army drove back the British Expedtionary Force to the coast at Dunkirk. Hitler ordered Guderian to halt his army which had since been a matter of speculation whether Hitler was still in hope to come to an agreement with the british for ideological and strategic reasons. The British managed to organize a hasty retreat across the canal but had to leave all of their equipment and weapons on the beaches which caused the british army to loose its foothold in europe for years.
"Farrell argues that the historiography of the army in World War Two has been "extremely difficult" because of the stark dichotomy between its superb combat performance and the horrors of its destruction and crimes against civilians and prisoners."
Sentences like this clearly show that the author is following a pattern of superior allied morality. You could argue that there were crimes against civilians but strangely enough nobody calls allied raids on civilians a crime. If you want to play this card, play it objectively and balanced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokith (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  useful article? 

message: It maybe a usefull hint to emphasize the mentioning of the somewhat unique conception of war in the german language. Most romanic languages took over the older german term "Wirren" (war, guerra, guerre...), which was shove aside - metaphoricly spoken - by the outgoing or achieving image of "Krieg" (kriegen= to get, to obtain...). Since this predomination of the positive term goes along with the hayday of early german militarism (meaning the mercenaries of dutch/flemish, swiss, scandinavian and german descent throughout the late medieval centuries), one might consider to give that aspect of german military history the same importance as the prussian role model for the last 200 years. For those, who like to distinct between the nation of Germany and earlier political phenomena I would advise to begin with the 3rd Reich.
--85.178.36.130 (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krieg 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Military history of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050205071414/http://home.versatel.nl/gerardvonhebel/germit1859.htm to http://home.versatel.nl/gerardvonhebel/germit1859.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051016000600/http://www.allempires.com/articles/hussite/hussite1.htm to http://www.allempires.com/articles/hussite/hussite1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)