Talk:German Army (1935–1945)

message: I've introduced a separate article named Wehrmacht Heer to focus on the army and its units which are covered by many separate articles. No hierarchical structure seems to exist on Wikipedia that would connect these articles, though.
The article Wehrmacht should focus on general aspects. -- Matthead discuß!     O       23:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2007 

message: The image :Image:German cavalry.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:German cavalry.jpg

message: FG 42 was NOT given to the Heer. Hitler was opposed to the FG 42 and insisted that it is not to be produced. Goring, on the other hand, insisted that his paratroopers had a weapon to drop with that was useful in both long range and short range.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.106.3 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FG 42 

message: i am no expert, but something seems to be missing here. ie, some mention of the SS and its relationship with the army. for this reason i have added the 'expert' tag. thank you. Decora (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if nothing else it should be clarified that the Waffen-SS was not part of the regular army or Heer (but should be considered as part of the overall Wehrmacht [as I understand it]).Historian932 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Kierzek (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: UNDONE.  No citations, you didn't put the info in the body of the article, etc. Do your job or don't edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  added the 'expert needed' tag 

message: please see the discussion at WikiProject Military history which concerns this page. noclador (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Military naming convention 

message: While I don't object strongly to the title "German Army (Wehrmacht)", the move debate was closed with an inappropriate rationale. There is no debate on whether the Wehrmacht was disbanded in 1946, this is a fact recognised by all serious scholars and sources, and the decision by the Allied control council that dissolved the Wehrmacht in 1946 was crystal clear. There is nothing "inappropriate" about the correct title German Army (1935–1946)"; this is only a matter of whether we generally prefer to use dates, or some other system (like "Wehrmacht" or "United States Armed Forces") to disambiguate titles like this one. Both titles are equally correct. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to argue that the version with the year range (1935-1946) is more precise and less ambiguous.  Actually is completely unambiguous and describes the subject matter better, as many readers may not know the German term. While Wehrmacht has been used as a proper noun for that period, the term has also been used since at least the Frankfurt Constitution (1848) to describe the same, and since ALL nouns in German are capitalized there is no way to distinguish the meaning. It takes special knowledge to understand the meaning of the current title. Kbrose (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm not "challenging an administrator decision", I'm debating the validity of a statement of fact made on this talk page. I have no strong objection to the decision to move the page to its current title, but I'm pointing out that any claim that the year 1946 is "inappropriate" is flatly wrong, and we need to have this for the record on this talk page. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move debate again

message: I would definitely for chosing the lemma German army (Wehrmacht) instead of the capitalized version, since the term "German Army" does not signify any official title, but is just a compromise in terms of an easier search. The German army ground fources was called Heer, not Deutsche Armee, which would be the direct translation of "German Army". That's why the article should be renamed correctly, in my view.--Uldra (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should just merge all the different German Army articles into one, where the WWII German Army can be covered in a subsection of the main body text. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with amalgamating, they each are significantly different and not just chronological iterations of the same thing. As far as the renaming is concerned, we should not go back to Heer because German Army is far more recognisable, and Heer doesn't translate into English. The nearest thing to Heer in English is German Army, and Heer is a proper noun, so we should retain the proper noun capitalisation in English. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the modern German Army very explicitly does not claim lineage from the pre-1945 army, and its traditions and ethos are explicitly different in key regards. I think that solid sourcing would be needed to establish that they should be considered the same institution. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Move debate again II

message: Why is this article entitled "German Army (Wehrmacht)"?  The word "Wehrmacht" refers to the German military, which includes the Army (Heer), Navy (Kriegsmarine), and Air Force (Luftwaffe).  If it is about the German Army, it should be entitled "German Army (Heer)".
ETO Buff (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that the German Army was part of the Wehrmacht, per the move discussions above. - BilCat (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "It means that the German Army was part of the Wehrmacht" That's not even a rationally -silly- answer, since there are NO "German Navy (Wehrmacht)" or "German Air Force (Wehrmacht)" entries for their wiki's, they are called by their service names in nazi Germany, the "Kriegsmarine" and the "Luftwaffe". So to insist on continuing with the incorrect usage of "Wehrmacht" the definition of which is "Armed Forces", as opposed to the correct term, "Heer", which means "Army", is not only ignorant, it smacks of a rather puerile attraction and/or attachment to the more lurid aspects of the absolute lowest denominator of the literature of nazi Germany.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.184.114 (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit late to the party, but please don't shoot the messenger. I wasn't justifying the title, merely explaining it for those not adept at finding previous discussions. - BilCat (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a compromise title, based on the consensus above. (Heer) makes less sense as a disambiguator than (Wehrmacht) because even less people will know what Heer is, whereas at least some people will know that the Wehrmacht was the German armed forces of WWII. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Usage of "Wehrmacht" 

message: Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was these pictures do not belong in this high-level article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2019 edit  

message: In re: this text: 
::According to a study by Alex J. Kay and David Stahel, approximately 6 million of the 10 million Wehrmacht soldiers deployed to the Soviet Union, participated in committing war crimes.Kay, Alex J., and David Stahel. “Reconceiving Criminality in the German Army on the Eastern Front, 1941–1942.” Mass Violence in Nazi-Occupied Europe, edited by Alex J. Kay and David Stahel, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, 2018, pp. 173–194. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3znw3v?turn_away=true
Could you provide more context? I've read portions of the book and recall something similar. An expanded quotation would be helpful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the book it states on page 182.https://www.academia.edu/37213201/Reconceiving_Criminality_in_the_German_Army_on_the_Eastern_Front_1941_1942 if we take into account all forms of criminality—from the plundering of Soviet homes and the exploitation of local resources to rape and sexual slavery—it would be reason-able to conclude that a substantial majority of the 10 million Wehrmacht soldiers deployed at one time or another in the German-Soviet War were involved or complicit in criminal conduct.
That is why I worded it like that, since they give a figure for the total number of troops.Driverofknowledge (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2020 edis 

message: The subsection starts with a rather weird, unprofessional and un-encyclopedic phrase.
“It is a myth that the German Army in World War II was a mechanized juggernaut as a whole.”
Oh really? Well, just a shame for the readers who came to read about the equipment of the Wehrmacht, and not you know “myths about the Wehrmacht” or something similar.
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The appropriate section for writing about “myths about the Wehrmacht” is an article about... (surprise!) Myths about the Wehrmacht. A subsection or article about Wehrmacht equipment should be about Wehrmacht equipment, not about what a random editor considers to be a myth. 
192.38.141.210 (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite “equipment” subsection? 

message: I moved this out of the article:  "The German Army fought a war of annihilation on the Eastern Front and was responsible for many war crimes alongside the Waffen and Allgemeine SS. "  This is not in the body of the article, nor is it referenced.  Don't add material to the lede unless it is a summary of what is in the article body.  Also, this is an important topic with numerous RS's out there - stop being lazy editors - follow the guidelines!  50.111.51.247 (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from lede - references! 

message: national system called  154.73.120.125 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History  

message: Germany weiwar republic  was hit hard by the depression , as America  loan to help  republic the Germany  economy  stopped 154.73.120.125 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History